I will always have a place in my heart for Gov. Ryan because he stopped the executions in Illinois. It was the right thing to do. And it took courage.

One of my favorite post Citizens United protest signs is one that states. " I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one." The way that Texas split its civil and criminal justice systems to fast track state killing is pure abomination. Makes my skin crawl.

I learned in an evidence class that once a criminal case goes to trial the defendant has only a 17 percent chance of acquittal. Those are not good odds.

Thanks Roger. As you state here "it is impossible that the judicial system functions with 100% accuracy." Because the infallibility of the court system in every murder case cannot be possible, and never could be possible no matter how "perfect" of a judicial system we devise (because humans are fallible by nature), the death penalty will always kill innocent men and women. Therefore, eliminating the death penalty will at least never lead to the death of the wrongly accused, and as has happened in so many cases, provide more time for new evidence to come to light. For me, the logic here is good, and cannot be denied. This way we don't even have to delve into the morals of "should we" or "shouldn't we" punish murder with death, because we all agree that the killing of innocents is unacceptable.

This is one of the best columns you've ever written.
And that's saying a lot.
Thanks.
I hope it does some good.

Yeah, and yet, this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/connecticut_sees_red_after_hor.html

How ironic how the two governors in question have never hesitated boasting about their suppossed Christian beliefs. The Death Penalty is one of the most un-Christian things imaginable.
But then again, what's 152 executed prisioners when compared to 4000+ americans dead in the recent wars, plus the untold, unimaginable number of iraqis and Afhgans? Perhaps pocket change is the best way to define the first group.
One of the most disturbing newscasts I can recall ever seeing came over twenty years ago when Ted Bundy was executed. Not that there was any doubt about his guilt, but I remmember people celebrating outside the prison where the event too place, proudly displaying their signs with rejoicing statements about the guy's impending trip to hell. The point here is that the death penalty makes everybody involved less human and much more animal-like.

http://www.rogerogreen.com/2008/09/23/death-penalty-closure/

As I have noted, the issue of closure is one of the many reasons I OPPOSE capital punishment. For too many, it's a myth.

Unless, of course, it's not born.

Roger: I agree with your comments. A disproportionate number of poor people and people of color are executed in this country, especially in Texas. I personally don't believe that the state has the right to kill its people. I also feel (and believe statistics support this) that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent against murder. Also, human beings are flawed. Once a prisoner is killed, there is no way to bring that person back if new evidence ever exonerates him/her. Lastly, in order to try to create a fair system, which is impossible, the state spends millions of dollars that it can't afford on appeals. There's a great documentary on the subject (I'm sure there are many) called After Innocence. It tells the stories of just a few of the men who have been on death row and the through new DNA evidence were exonerated and released.

David Gann wrote an excellent piece for The New Yorker about Cameron Todd Willingham, an executee from Texas who was probably innocent. I try to see both sides of an argument, but I can't understand the argument for the death penalty of someone who just might be innocent.

Here's a good Frontline examination of the case: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/death-by-fire/

I worked within the courts for many years before taking on teaching. The system is just so arbitrary, so calculatingly unfair to poor people, both black and white. I wonder why we still do such a shameful, archaic blood-lustful thing as this in our country.

Not that i think it's all phony. Ok, I do, and certainly another misdirection, but why didn't this prison guard transfer to another prison or to another duty. After all, there are so many of 'em to transfer to.

From a non-American perspective, the death penalty remains the big dark stain on American credibility. How can a country be respected as an advocate for freedom, liberty, human rights etc. that does so incredibly bluntly violate the human right to life on such a regular and institutional basis?
You write "Do you, do I, feel better when a killer is executed?" - that is supposed to be a rhetorical question, but I was often stunned to experience the joy and cheers I experienced when people in the US learned about the execution of their perceived "enemies" - whether it was after a formal execution in front of a Texas prison, or whether it was on the streets after learning that Bin Laden was killed. Not a bit of sorrow that a human was killed, or at least that a criminal was executed without trial? That is quite saddening.

A good film which shows how an innocent man can be executed is "10 Rillington Place", with Richard Attenborough and John Hurt. The serial killer John Christie not only managed to murder a series of women, but also framed the father / husband of two of the victims, who was hanged, as Christie was later himself. It's often easy to forget that Attenborough was so good at playing creeps before concentrated on production and became a national treasure (and Santa Claus). http://www.veoh.com/watch/v18728189TqyW6AFp?h1=10+Rillington+Place+%281971%2C+Richard+Fleischer%29

... except when it comes to terrorists.

Once more, I turn to my betters: George Orwell's "A Hanging": http://www.george-orwell.org/A_Hanging/0.html

But I stand on the shore and watch the "blood-dimmed tide" always coming in.

Living in Texas in 08 and 09 took me from being casually against the death penalty to joining an anti death penalty group. There was mitigating evidence that showed the flaws of the junk science used to execute Cameron Todd Willingham, yet he was not only executed but Governor Perry stopped the investigation of wrongful execution. The legal system there is a murderous group with Governor Perry at the helm.

I used to live in Houston (which is in Harris County...which is huge) and I've been to Huntsville, which is right next to it. One thing that was stunningly shocking that I saw a few years ago was downtown. Downtown Houston is a like a little square of streets surrounded by a freeways on all four sides and when I was a little lost I noticed on one side that under the freeway, literally across the street from downtown, as soon as you exit the square, under the freeway there was a field of bums who lived there with sleeping bags and everything; literally one side of the street is downtown and on the other side of it is a field of bums....it was crazy.

I'm not sure if most Americans can understand just how obscene the death penalty seems to most of the rest of the world. Here in Canada we haven't executed anybody in 50 years - longer than I've been alive - and I truly believe we are a better people for it.

Every once in a while some monster surfaces - a Clifford Olsen, or a Paul Bernardo - and we briefly think that it would be nice to be rid of them once and for all. But then we look at the much longer list of the wrongly convicted, and at the slaughterhouses you call prisons. And we realize it's easier to live with the idea of keeping a monster in a cage than becoming monsters ourselves.

Ebert: "If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

I'm not sure about your logic there. If kidnapping and holding people against their will is wrong, then is it also wrong for Society to seize and incarcerate kidnappers?

I should also mention that Canada's Conservative government is using it's recent majority to push through new "tough on crime" laws such as mandatory minimum sentencing and increased drug penalties that seek to emulate failed policies of the U.S. justice system. Even Texas lawmen have come north to beg them not to go down that road, but to no avail.

The Provinces are now preparing to start spending American levels of money on building and staffing new prisons.

T

It's useless to debate point by point on the subject, as it's one Mr. Ebert has used as a bludgeon against the State of Texas for years (see his review of The Life of David Gale).

Having said that, let me state the following: the purpose of the death penalty is not to vindicate families nor is it to make anyone "feel good". Noone should feel good for having to administer the death penalty.

The death penalty is societies way of saying that the unjust murder of an innocent life is so heinous a crime, it demands the ultimate punishment, the forfeiture of the life of the murderer.

Many on the Left claimed they would support the death penalty in the case of the Penn State coach in numerous blog postings on Huffington, NYTimes.com, etc . . . but that is not a death penalty offense and trivializes the death penalty.

What Texas has found is that contrary to academicians who come with an agenda of banning a practice they simply don't like, the people of this state are safer because of the death penalty.

Harris County is a HUGE county. It includes Houston, which had a massive influx of Katrina refugees, and crime rates soared when New Orleans criminals began their sprees in H-town.

Why would it be surprising, then, to find an inordinate number of black males (not females, incidently) on death row; the number is high, relative to the population, but not relative to the crimes they commit and the proportion of death penalty offenses.

Prison guards should feel sympathy. They are doing a job, they have families, they go to church on Sunday, and are simply human.

But when a Karla Faye Tucker plunged a pick axe 27 times into her two victims deriving sexual release from the act, the punishment was worthy.

I agree completely. We should be better than that. It's a sin and a shame for our whole country.

This was an interesting article. I believe that the state has the right to execute people for severe crimes, usually murder--on biblical grounds. The taking of life in an execution goes right to the heart of our morals and spirituality and beliefs. What is life? Who gave it? Who has the right to end it? For what reasons does the state have the right to take a life?

For many people, the answers are found in the Bible. Life is a gift of God. God, and the earthly authorities He has appointed, have the right to kill people for extremely serious crimes.

People rage against the death penalty because the state could expand it's powers beyond what is right, or that innocent people could be killed. I agree wholeheartedly with these concerns, however, justice does need to be done, and people need to fear and respect the law and authority.

My opinion is that people are against the death penalty as a way of saying that no matter how evil a person's actions, there is nothing worthy of killing them. Underneath it all, it seems to be another way of saying that nothing is really all that seriously wrong with what people do.

God couldn't disagree more. He sees sin as being so serious that an execution was required to redeem sinful humanity. A death was required: Christ on the cross. Justice and grace in one picture.

In my opinion, being imprisoned for life is the greater punishment, especially since most methods of execution are not tortuous.

How we "feel" is not the main issue here. Justice being done and respect for the law is the issue.

One thing is true: if you execute a murderer, he will never murder again.

Roger said. "If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases." I disagree. Taking life is not wrong in the cases of a just war, some self defense situations, and execution for capital crimes.

It is true that some people will be wrongly executed, and that is indeed terrible.

However, should we stop driving cars because some people are killed on the highway?

If a country (or state) is to have capital punishment, then its executions absolutely must be carried out publicly. You don't get to call for blood and then turn away when it's shed.

Apart from the risk of punishing the innocent is the question whether the guilty should be so sentenced. If not, what about murder in war? Specially nuclear? What punishment would you prescribe?

I think there comes a point when a person is irredeemable, and in that situation I am accepting of their removal from Earth. There are those individuals in federal prisons that are not only obviously guilty but obviously unrepentant whose daily handling is a risk for all involved. I'm not sure that justice demands the death penalty in any specific case, and statistics have shown clearly that is has no deterrent value, but I don't see how a life sentence served behind bars is any more pleasant than death. Ideally a society would never have an offender so bad that they cannot live among everyone else, but the reality is that those individuals exist and there are no more Australias to exile them to. It's a shame circumstances could ever turn out such derelict people but until science finds a way to reprogram a human brain I don't think execution should be completely out of the question.

Nice chart, Roger. In a related earlier discussion, I noted Bush and Perry alone had iced more inmates than died in 5 of our wars in the 80's and 90's. I just went back and reviewed the Intel. We actually deployed into 13 sovereign countries from 1979 to 2000.

Now Perry just needs to maintain his normal Texas kill rate in 2012 (your chart). If so, by December, we will have executed more inmates nationally since 1977 than soldiers killed in ALL our foreign incursions during the same time period. And I include among the war dead those murdered in the nightmare Beirut barracks bombing(1983).

Ebert, you're a libertarian and you don't even know it!! Great blog entry!! I myself am a libertarian and a christian, and I gotta tell you, Jesus told the MURDERER next to him as he was crucified that he would be with him in paradise when he died. He died for the murderer, the thief, the liar, the politician, etc. Who are we to kill another person? Now, where you and I probably differ is when you call someone a someone. Peace.......

Written like a man who has never had a loved one murdered.

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence and considered by some as part of one of the most well crafted, influential sentences in the history of the English language. These three aspects are listed among the "unalienable rights" or sovereign rights of man.

Roger, first a quick point of fact:
When you wrote It would appear that if the board rejected your appeal, your chance of having the sentence overturned by Bush or Perry was zero, that is absolutely correct. The Governor of Texas cannot commute or pardon a sentence without a recommendation, he can only hand out one time 30 day reprieves. http://bit.ly/c1WgQq
As of last September, Perry ignored three recommendations by the board. http://nyti.ms/oxEI69
Of course, the Governor appoints the board members.
Your wording implies that if the Governor of Texas were so inclined, he could what Governor Ryan did in Illinois, which is untrue.
Now my opinions:

As a death supporter, I did cringe when I saw my governor applauded during a debate on the number of executions that were carried out during his term. The taking of a life should be treated as a solemn duty, forced upon us by the actions of a killer. It's nothing to be proud of.
I'm against the effort in some states to expand the death penalty to non-murder cases, such child rape.
Many anti-death penalty arguments I come across focus on the possibility of executing the innocent. I don't believe that is the route you should take. Nobody favors executing innocents, and that argument will only lead to stricter standards on how capital punishment will be applied. If you want abolition, focus on the guilty. For all my uneasiness about the death penalty, I've yet to be convinced that people like Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dahmer, or the killers of James Byrd have forfeited their right to breath.

I wonder how many perfectly upstanding and productive members of society are executed for murder. Probably none. Fly straight and you won't find yourself on death row.

That's about all the thought I care to spend on this subject. There are FAR more important challenges facing us than trying to determine if someone ACTUALLY pulled the trigger, or really MEANT for his victim to die.

Hi Roger,

I'm not against the death penalty itself, but I am against the speed of the process where the evidence is not looked at clearly and an innocent is deemed guilty. At this moment, I am writing an article about the Christie case, which has already been mentioned, for CrimeMagazine.com. The police were so sure that they had the right man that Evans was coached in his statements to give answers that would convict him, the judge was prejudiced against him, and the trial was farcical. Evidence that would have at least thrown doubt upon the murderer being Evans was suppressed and in the end "justice" won, and an innocent man died. Evans was wrongly executed, and that is a horrendous tragedy. Christie, who killed at least eight people, WAS eventually hanged, and I have no problem with that. But if you are going to execute someone, you must be 1000% absolutely certain, no doubt about it, that you have the right man. I am English, but live in Canada, both countries no longer carry out executions. I look at places such as Texas, and the sheer number of people on death row almost guarantees a mistake somewhere. But what the answer is, I do not know.

I'm here in Oklahoma, and a few years ago I was looking at our death penalty stats. I don't remember the specific numbers now, but assuming the records I was looking at were accurate and complete, I was surprised at the time to learn that my state had executed more people in the 30 or so years since the Supreme Court restored the death penalty than it had in the nearly 70 years before. (We entered the Union in 1907.)

Yes, our population has grown in those years, but not by that much. We're less than 4 million spread over 70,000 square miles. Greater Chicago is much larger.

It's all done very quietly. There was a time when an execution was at the top of the day's news. Unless a celebrity murderer is involved, you hardly hear about them anymore, at least before they happen. Along with the stock market and weather, it might be nice if the daily news included how many people the State was killing that day. If nobody else will do it, maybe Garrison Keillor could add it to his Writer's Almanac. "British author Charles Dickens was born 200 years ago today, and, in other news, the state of Florida will be killing some guy tonight at midnight."

The most immediate argument against the death penalty is that we're a little too good at convicting the wrong people. If we could ever be assured that only the guilty are executed, only then could the question of capital punishment be considered one honest people could disagree on.

So what about war? Should the US not participate in war for fear of taking an innocent life. Plus what about all the innocent animal lives taken to keep you plump and full. You're a hippocrit. Also, disproportionate number of black people are executed because a disproportionate number of black people commit crimes. That's just the facts. Blacks need to stop playing the race card and take responsibility for themselves. It's always someone else's fault. Society made you kill, that's bull. Stop whining.

An excellent article on Henry Lee Lucas, by David McGowan:

There's Something About Henry

David goes into much more detail on the many connections between serial killers and high level politics in Programmed to Kill: The Politics of Serial Murder . Also recommended is his web series about the dark history of Laurel Canyon, California.

I find the assembly line approach to the death penalty in Texas and in nations like China morally reprehensible and tantamount to institutionalized murder. But who among us would, in cases like John Wayne Gacy's, Clifford Olson's or the Cheshire murders - not be glad to see the perpetrators put to death, especially if it was your own children or loved ones they raped, tortured and murdered?

One of my favorite authors, Robert Anton Wilson, remained a staunch opponent of the death penalty even after his daughter Luna was brutally murdered at the age of 15. I think he was in favor of brainwashing/reprogramming such criminals 'straight', but isn't that like lobotomy - destroying the old personality in the brain and replacing it with a new one? Would we ever consider doing that to a war criminal and mass murderer (if you believe Christopher Hitchens and others) who happens to be a powerfully connected global elitist like Henry Kissinger?

As a martial artist I believe I do have the right to, if absolutely necessary, use lethal force to protect my own life and the lives of my loved ones (or for that matter the life of any citizen). Even the so-called 'spiritual' martial arts of Aikido and Tai Chi Chuan have techniques designed to kill, because in a fight with mortal stakes, to show mercy to your opponent is to be cruel to yourself. This is supposed to be the whole reason we have Police and Armed Forces in the first place.

If the U.S.'s prisons were not so overwhelmed with convicts in on drug running/selling charges maximum security prisons would have a lot of room freed up for murderers, child abusers and violent criminals (heck, if just marijuana was decriminalized prison overpopulation would be substantially reduced). All the same, if we insist on keeping child murderers alive on the taxpayer dime I'm not sure I'm comfortable with them living out their lives in a facility with the resources of a spa.

Ideally capital punishment should be meted out only in the most extreme of cases, like the Cheshire murders, and only after a trial that is scrupulously honest, thorough and fair. If you are a black guy living in Harris county, Texas, you aren't likely to get it. The only thing I can think to advise (other than, if you happen to be born with dark skin, stay the fuck out of Harris, Texas) is if enough media attention is focused on the problem perhaps this rampant injustice can be stopped. However if Connecticut does execute Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, as I hope they do, I will not "feel better" nor lose any sleep over it. I do not see it as a cause for joy or celebration, but simply a case of justice served.

"If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

But it might not necessarily be immoral to kill. That is an unanswered question.

However, I do oppose the death penalty because (aside from the DNA thing, which really, itself isn't necessarily about being anti-death penalty but about false convictions) I think, out of knowledge, these people who are guilty could maybe scientifically give us some answers because I think the greater the problem the more transparent the problem. And most likely these are people who just have more extreme problems of what all of us have; so to enlarge their problems is to highlight ours: out of which you could also make a humanitarian case, because the reason they go to such great problems is because their despair is so great, so such much more pitiful and obvious. I think it's their way of gaining self-esteem. If you don't get it symbolically from society, you're going to go get it physically like it's the animal kingdom. To put that in internet speak, they are trolls who actually act on their inherent impulse to physically try to become the alpha and who aren't as fortunate to be deluded as to try to try to obtain it through commenting on blogs etc.

See, I've been talking about how people just want to see people's eyebrows lowered just to get a negative reaction out of people, or actually rather, a non-positive one, so that they can believe, out of disbelief of their shadow/unconscious side...which is unconscious, that they are the cause of it. Now, think about it. They can't communicate with you unless they see you as angry etc. and then they will act in kind and try to be negative back to you. So, it's animal kingdom. It all started long ago with some animal kingdom thing with the whole alpha thing etc. and that chain still hasn't been broken yet. For some, it has, but for most it seems that it hasn't been broken. So, basically, these are people who have been left behind and these murders they are doing is a way for them to pitifully say "Look how great I am." Which really is what we are all doing. So, about the transparency of problems, how are we supposed to stop murders if we don't know the cause of them by getting the answers from the murderers themselves? What if in one part of the city, there is a wave of murders going on, and that there was some kind of murder-virus out there that was causing it. How would we ever know if all we did was kill the murderers? So, scientifically, and I guess you could say, as an extension, as a humanitarian argument, we shouldn't kill them because we need to know what caused it...and one of those causes is probably the main one, that they have been left behind which seems to have come from a chain in the animal kingdom of dominance that has yet to be broken. How is it that we have all of these people around that have evolved with us but yet that haven't evolved, I don't know. Or maybe you could say that they have evolved but aren't participating in the evolution of our species. So, how have all of these people existed with us but haven't participated in the evolution of our species, I don't know. I think we probably evolved from a refusal to fight with each other which probably came from sharing a common goal that we all wanted to achieve, where, to get that goal is for everyone to win. Maybe that goal is reason. Everything exists for itself, by itself and of itself. I think we need to stop the symbolic prevention of reason so that it doesn't continue to exist, as everything else does, for itself, by itself and of itself, physically. Not allowing somebody to contribute to society is a prevention of reason (all for dominance, coming from a prevention of death...which is reasonable..in this case a symbolic death). Then that person's lashing out at society because of it is more prevention of reason (but once again is just reason existing in another form; the ironic physical death to prevent symbolic death..which came from physical death). Then obviously, there's the death penalty, which is a symbolic and physical prevention of reason even lucidly all wrapped in one; there's all that physical stuff said in the last sentence, but then they get to use reason, ironically, as made by whatever technology is used for the death penalty, to stop reason, or I should say, to make it continue in another form, because reason, like everything else exists for itself, by itself and of itself. We can have reasonable reason or we can have unreasonable reason; it doesn't care. But which one of those exists for us, by us and of us?

"Nobody has the right to take another life."

OK, lets put that axiom to the test: How about that woman in Oklahoma who shot a man trying to break into her house with a knife on Saturday. Did she?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57352344-504083/okla-teen-mom-asks-911-for-permission-fatally-shoots-intruder-on-new-years-eve/

Roger, I whole heatedly agree... I would also include abortion though. Nobody has the right to take any life no matter what stage that life is in.

"Nobody has the right to take another life"

Except for food or self-defense. The first exception does not apply in this case, unless the person involved is particularly depraved. But the second exception has often been applied in this case, as a type of pre-emptive strike.

Not to sound inhumanly utilitarian, aside from moral misgivings, the death penalty is also economically indefensible. Serial killers should not languish in prison at taxpayer expense. Let them earn their (minimal) subsistence and benefit society at large as well. We've seen prisoners make license plates, pulverize rocks for construction, and clean land bordering highways. Why not again?

I think containment technology has reached a point where the need for execution in the interest of public safety is obsolete. I can see where in the past, the death penalty was a necessary sentence because our ability to cage mad men wasn't as efficient as it is today.

Interesting how hypocrites lament the execution of rapists, murderers, etc. but don't care one bit about the child in the womb.

There was a news story on Yahoo about a young woman who shot a man who was breaking into her home with a 12 inch hunting knife. She was home with her 3 month old infant. Her husband had died on Christmas day. Now, you're saying that no one has a right to take a human life. Admirable sentiments--in theory. But I wonder what you would have advised this young woman as the man was breaking into her home with intent to kill, rape, torture, and/or murder her and her child. Perhaps she should have put her gun down and allowed him in to do whatever he wanted because, according to your words, 'if the taking of life is wrong in some cases, it is wrong in ALL cases.' "All cases" is strong verbiage, and applies to this particular case. Respectfully, I do not think it is so simple. Among those of us who are fortunate enough to live in peaceful places, where everything exists in abundance, it's easy and comfortable to have such an opinion. Taking of life is indeed wrong, but what do you do with people who do not care to have such high moral standards?

Ebert: Self-defense and protecting your child have nothing to do with the death penalty.

What about abortion then? Does woman's right to body overwhelm the foetus's right to live? To me, death penalty is as logical as abortion. One who opposes one and not the other is not thinking it through. (For the record, I am for both abortion and capital punishment).

I'm not sure these arguments will hold sway with supporters of the death penalty.

Don't we already condone the deaths of innocent people when our military strikes fail? These policies continue with public support as long as we occasionally get the bad guy. Casualites are expected. As for the mental health of our prison guards, don't we already expect our Armed Service men & women to sacrifice their mental health (or everything else) in the bringing of death to those we have deemed must die?

I find these costs to be too high, personally, but much of America seems OK with innocent deaths & broken heroes as long as death is occsionally brought to some of the worst of us.

According to the state constitution, the governor of Texas cannot legally commute or pardon any death sentence *unless* specifically recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles.

The recent conviction reversal of Michael Morton in the state of Texas is telling of how justice works in the state. Woe to anyone who ends up as a pawn in the aspirations of a prosecutor who wants nothing more than to score points for a political career.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/courts/entries/michael_morton_case/

One question; what then?

You share your views of the illogic of state executions, which I generally agree with, but I am a bit annoyed you don’t share your solution with readers. Or, are we to infer by your lack of direction you believe these prisoners should be considered to be candidates for general prison population?

They would certainly still be in prison, no joyful place, but they may mingle and perambulate and catch up on the latest gossip and read and watch tele and have visitors. Yes? So, for murdering someone; stealing their existence and adding a horror to the lives of those who loved them, would you prescribe this punishment? No? What then?

As I also do not believe humans have the intelligence and infallibility sufficient to command the irreversible act of executing prisoners, I have had to think of an alternative. But, as you are loath to share your option, I will hold back, as well.

Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Its amazing that the likes of Perry, who believe that government is always the epitome of incompetence, believe that when it comes to capital punishment government is infallible.

Which is it, dude.

I support the death penalty if for no other reason than that some people do not deserve to live.

I doubt that the death penalty increases killing due to the desire to eliminate witnesses. Whether the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, a killer will be motivated to eliminate witnesses.

However, I also completely support strict restrictions on the use of the death penalty. I too do not want innocent people executed. It would be fine with me to restrict the death penalty such that it was only used when there are multiple witnesses to a crime. Consider an extreme example: a gunman walks into a fast food restaurant and opens fire and kills a dozen people, and there are another dozen survivors who can identify the shooter, and in fact the police arrest the shooter when they storm the restaurant and tackle the guy who's carrying three different guns and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Is there any question that they got the right guy? No. Should this person live? Another example, possibly: the corpses of two dozen children are found buried on a man's property and in his house. The man has been the sole resident of this property during the time the children went missing.

Obviously these restrictions would need to be spelled out in such a way that they would ensure that no innocent person would be put to death. And that may mean that a lot of obviously guilty people would not be eligible for the death penalty. That's fine. Better safe than sorry.

I disagree with the notion that it's wrong to take a human life, period. For instance, there's war. Yes, war sucks. But without war, how was the world to stop Hitler?

And returning to the topic of killers, it just doesn't sit well with me that (for instance) a man could rape and kill twenty children and then get to live out the rest of his life in prison. His victims won't get a second chance at life, why should he?

I want the death penalty to remain on the table even if the restrictions on its use are so strong that it rarely gets used, because there will be those who commit heinous acts and who we know with 100% certainty are guilty (and frankly, we should also know with 100% certainty that those sentenced to life imprisonment are guilty) who just should not be allowed to live any longer than necessary.

Yes, I want the death penalty for the sake of revenge. It may not reduce crime, it may not make the families of the victims feel any better. It just comes down to wanting the most monstrous criminals to lose the right to live. Sorry.

Mr Ebert,

I appreciate your heart, but here's where I disagree with you: "If the taking of life is wrong, then it's wrong in all cases."

Who has decided that the taking of a life is wrong in the first place? And who then gets to make the call that it is "wrong in all cases"?

This appeal to "humanity" is very silly if you examine it long enough, considering the fact that John Wayne Gacy was a human, as is Joshua Komisarjevsky, and so on. Whose humanity are we appealing to? Are you the new blueprint for the human race? Am I?

The fact is, plenty of people have completely conflicting, well-informed opinions on this subject. So appealing to "humanity" means appealing to all the myriad different viewpoints that people present.

It's easy to feel pity for someone as pathetic as Michael Perry. Do you pity the woman he shot and killed? Do you pity their family?
I've noticed a distinct lack of empathy for the victim in these crimes, both in your review and in this post. It's all about the poor shotgunner Perry and your passions against the death penalty.
Do we honor that woman whose death sentence was owning a car? Or the two young men whose death sentence was trusting Michael Perry?

Do we honor their memory by providing snacks and chocolate and small measures of enjoyment to the person who mutilated their bodies with 00 buckshot?
Or does the blood of these victims cry out?
While I sympathize with your perspective, I will remain in disagreement with it until it deals admirably with the worst of the worst, and seeks to care for the victim MORE than it cares for the perpetrator. A society that does otherwise has no right to appeal to anyone's "humanity".

The film "Monster's Ball" deals very effectively with the breakdown of a death-row prison guard who has had enough. In a film where some people only remember the sex, the scene that was unforgettable to me was the scene in which Hank, the Billy Bob Thornton character, quits his job as a corrections officer. The warden asks him if he wouldn't like to keep his badge as a momento. Hank simply responds, "I have no use for it".

where do you stand on the taking of an infant life? abortion? if you do not consider abortion the taking of another life then you're completely scientifically inaccurate in your thought and knowledge of what defines life.

I imagine that most of your readers do not know that a population of over 4 million can be found in Harris County, home to Houston. I like your argument style- keep the facts hazy enough to support your stance.

Great column. I’m a conservative who is adamantly opposed to the death penalty. I welcome the day when this ghastly practice is finally abolished. Unfortunately, many conservatives continue to operate under the tragic misconception that being opposed to the death penalty translates to being “soft on crime.”

I reluctantly favored the death penalty as a necessary evil until my senior year of college. I had a change of heart during an undergraduate Public Policy course. There is no causal link demonstrating that the death penalty deters capital crime. The empirical evidence documenting racial bias in the administration of the death penalty is overwhelming and irrefutable and cause for national embarrassment. But even if the death penalty could be infallibly administered, the practice is still immoral.

Excellent article. The death penalty merits a national review and my hope is that it is abolished. But I would be remised if I did not ask why some people who take such a vocal stand against the death penalty, criticizing the ethical and moral issues, take such a vocal stand to uphold abortion. The thought of executing an innocent person is so saddening. But how is that any different than aborting an unborn child? Both are innocent, both have days, weeks, months, years to live… I believe that all people, whether on death row or in the womb, should not be executed by another person. If one believes that a women has the right to choose, then why can’t the government of a state, elected and appointed to maintain the well-being of its citizens, also choose which criminals die for the most heinous acts?

I had believed in the death penalty for a very long time. It seemed very simple. If you kill someone, you yourself are killed. That the murder of an innocent person is such a heinous crime that your forfeit your life as a result.

Of course, there is that last part - the murder of an innocent person. What initially hit me about the Cameron Todd Willingham case (overview at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham) wasn't even that an innocent person was murdered by the state. It's that no one from the Governor down seemed to care that an innocent person was murdered by the state, and indeed covered up that fact to the best of his ability.

It's one thing for honest men to make a mistake and atone. It's another for amoral men to pretend that the murder of an innocent man means nothing.

A "Let it Snow" parody

Though the rape-homicide is frightful,
His defense is sooooo delightful,
And since the jury just can't say no,
Let him go! Let him go! Let him go!

It doesn't show crime of dropping,
And he gave his word for stopping,
Prosecuting only adds more woe,
Let him go! Let him go! Let him go!

When the evidence is revealed,
Get him off with the plea of insane,
Since the victims have all been killed,
They're no longer here to complain!

So! Our prisons are overcrowding,
And some activists are pouting.
Why execute him or even stow?
Let him go! Let him go! Let him go!

The majority of our politicians (North America) are elitists, and elitism is antithetical to empathy. And a lack of empathy is essential for enacting heartless social policies (be it capital punishment, or anti-medicare, or social program slashing) to be enacted. Can you picture Perry or Bush or Romney, or (in Canada) Stephen Harper rubbing elbows at a truck stop? Photo opps that try to counter this reality are insulting, because they say nothing more than: "this is an exercise in making Candidate Jones appear to be 'of the people', when we all know otherwise". Ask a candidate how much a carton of milk costs, and the width of his/her accuracy will correspond directly to his/her opposition to social programs.

"Nobody has the right to take another life."

So how do you feel about abortion, Roger?
And did this woman (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/04/teen-mom-shoots-kills-intruder-with-11-dispatcher-on-phone/) a right to take a life?

I think you should stick to movie reviews. You're less likely to sound like an idiot.

" If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

Yes, Roger, and I think of this when I consider the termination of hundreds of thousands of black children in America.

The problem with both sides is that too many on the right are much too casual about capital punishment and too many on the left are too casual about abortion.

As a Catholic, I have to say that both barbaric practices fill me with disgust.

Ebert: I'm curious about why you specify "black children."

"If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

Does that apply to abortion?

Does that apply to war?

I'm looking forward to seeing "Into the Abyss". I side with you on the death penalty. It's amazing to me the that almost all of the supporters of the death penalty would consider themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion.

If you haven't seen it, Penn & Teller did an excellent show about the death penalty on their series "Bullshit". It's probably on Netflix instant. Worth a watch.

Thanks for writing this. If not one of your best, one of your most important.

Hey Roger, thank you so much for writing this. I, like you, abhore the death penalty, but with that worldview certain problems arise.

I'm an amateur film critic in my spare time. Every year, I find myself struggling to write about specific movies that I have no doubt are great, but seem to inadvertently endorse capital punishment in a way the filmmakers may not have intended. The issue for us, as critics, is: if the death penalty is abolished in real life, is it still morally acceptable for audiences to enjoy the executions of villains onscreen?

For instance, earlier this fall I watched Greenway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" for the first time. Excellent film. Visceral, too, as you wrote in your review. But it also ends [spoilers] with a wife gunning down her murderous husband while he's forced to eat her dead lover, and unarmed. It's a very cathartic moment -- it's one for the audience. But by enjoying it, are we not, in fact, celebrating the execution of a killer?

At the same time, by questioning this, I am questioning the very essense of drama. It's a tradition for villains to die, often gruesomely, at the ends of dramatic stories. Shakespeare did it all the time. So how can we abolish capital punishment, in real life, without seeming to look like hypocrites if we continue to celebrate it in drama? Rick Perry could easily justify the executions of those 235 prisoners in Texas by arguing, "Well, Hamlet executed his uncle, didn't he?" (although it's probably giving Perry too much credit to assume he's a Shakespeare fan).

This just seems to be a recurring phenomenon for me. Is there a difference between enjoying Indy's shooting of the Arab swordsman in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (an act of self-defense), and enjoying Marlene Dietrich's stabbing of Tyrone Power in "Witness for the Prosecution" (an act of execution, as even the Charles Laughton character declares at the end)? Are we not enjoying the death of a villain either way?

I try to justify it by reminding myself that we're not celebrating the death of the villain, but the death of evil. When Osama bin Laden got shot in the face, I was glad -- not necessarily because he died, but because his reign of evil came to an end. I even disagree with the suggestions by Michael Moore and Ron Paul that bin Laden was "executed". The reason is because he was killed in his own home, and had every opportunity to defend himself.

But still, it doesn't change the fact that I'm glad he's gone. Because of that, I feel like some hypocrite.

So, how do we deal with this? Are we contradicting ourselves if our society someday abolishes the practice of executing villains, even as our art will continue to glorify it? It's a troubling phenomenon, one that's been bothering me for a very long time now.

When the death penalty becomes a political tool, it should be abolished. Bush started the trend of increased executions to display he was tough on crime and garner votes. Hey, it eventually won him the presidential election - twice. Perry has continued the tradition, though it appears his own presidential aspirations are a bit tattered, thank God. Whether or not the men executed were guilty is completely irrelevant when it comes to politics and winning elections. Same with war. Take the hill, be damned the men killed charging its steep face. Men crawl across the bones of the dead quite often to achieve power. Sorry you're shocked and outraged Roger. Follow Mr. Herzog's inspiration and get out of Chicago some time. Otherwise, well...

... except when in large numbers and to the sound of drummers

In at least one case I disagree. Convicted terrorists (at least those involved in the murder of innocents) must be put to death. Otherwise there is always the possibility of their release, if the masterminds behind the terror manage to get their hands on civilian hostages, who are coldly regarded as "bargaining chips."

I would like to see supporting evidence for the contention that the death penalty causes "more deaths" because there is an incentive to kill witnesses. Would that not also be true for murderers who face life in prison?

The fact that the death penalty is sometimes done badly is not a good argument to eliminate it, and surely there are situations which demand it, if not for "equality" (eye for an eye) then for societal retribution, which I think legitimate, so long as done carefully (more carefully than at present, obviously.)

No one will ever convince me that we would be better off providing Ted Bundy (to choose one obvious example of the hundreds available) with three meals a day, cable television, and interviews with whatever writers or film producers might choose to pursue that, than we are with him somewhere in the ground.

For the record, there are dozens upon dozens of examples of people convicted of murder, who later escape, are pardoned, or are otherwise released who then go on to kill again. The death penalty would have saved the lies of many prison guards who are killed by inmates and people on the outside who fall in the way of these psychopaths, who, for some reason, generate sympathy instead of loathing, and whose godforsaken lives people rise to defend.

Nothing is perfect, but it can be made far better than it is today and it should be, particularly for the most heinous crimes, and coupled with additional safeguards that the penalty is carried out only when "absolute surety" is reached by a jury.

I am in favor of the death penalty, but only in extreme cases, like for example if you have a Mason type killer who brags about it. I can't feel sympathy for someone like that. There is a difference between taking an innocent life and taking the life of a murderer.

Much has been made of racial statistics in prisons and on death row. The hard truth of the matter is that while there are far more blacks than whites in prison, blacks commit a far higher percentage of the crimes. Basic statistics there.

What always gets me is that we keep forgetting who we are, or what we are. Or we just don't want to see it and are in denial.

We so desperately want te be more then what we are.

"Mankind is poised midway between the Gods and the Beasts."
—Plotinus

We like to seperate ourseves from this thing around us we call nature. That we are more then 'beast'. But we are so wrong, so fooling ourself.

There are no God's, there is only 'nature' (this complex structure of atoms). And in nature (this thing we call) life has no meaning.

What we call and define as murder and violence, is a huge part of nature and a huge part of us and our history. We all don't want to see this and create meaning and morality to deal with this horrible thought. But it is a lie. There is no morality in nature nor in us. We are all very capable of muder and violance. What i see is that so called 'civilized behaviour' or 'humanity' (strange word when i think about it) is wafer-thin. It is a luxury some happy few on this earth can afford themselves. It is a way to give meaning to life, some value and a set of rules to live by. But the reality is that underneath us all lies a vast pool of primordial behaviour coming from the reptilian part of our brain that has served us well for millions of years. It is partly responsible for us surviving as a spiecies and becoming the dominant one.

If i would starve, or my children, i would kill you for your food. And you are kidding yourself if you think you wouldn't do the same.

Mankind will never be anything more than 'beast', no matter how hard they try....

So stop caring. It will not change a thing.

Roger, check out the story of Michael Morton who was set free after 25 years in a Texas prison. He was released last October. His case will boggle your mind.....I lived in Texas for 30 years. I left as soon as I could:)

We like to judge and condemn, that is not up for debate.

I believe everyone of us given the right set of circumstances, can cross the threshold and commit acts of violence etc...it is not so simple as: "that monster murdered all those people-he(she) was evil, and he(she) must pay!" This is a very naive way to address complex situations and people, and it a primary attempt to project out into the world, an "us and them" philosophy.

We repress so many of our own thoughts and urges, on a consistent basis- spend some quality time with your own psychology, in a very stark and honest manner. Perhaps this radical honesty could clean up many misperceptions about human behaviour and the many variables that cause unfavourable actions and violence.

We are so afraid of who the human animal really is, both as we still are at 40,000 (our DNA), and as we evolve socially.

Enlightenment and acceptance of our whole identity can improve
the way we execute (pun intended) justice, and reform broken societies.

We must find a way, with prose, film, poetry, or whatever, to get in touch with the reality of the terrifying harm we inflict on one another. We need a Dickens Twain Shakespeare somebody to spell it out, trigger the realizations.

Even terrorists actions are derived of complex variables, that none of us are immune to.

Terrorism may be biologically driven, as research is showing we may have evolved in groups, not just individually. There seems to be an an internal mechanism present in us that wants to take out the other groups. Again, the social factors come into play as well, which I don't think can be so easily separated from our biology.

Perhaps, even indivual psychology plays a part- the terrorist might have had a father complex, as many of us do, and the angst manifests in high level social aggression.

The reasons are complex. The chimpanzee communities reflect these principles, and usually the aggressor is the weakest male with greatest mind power. Again, we must strive to understand all of our capacities and the way they function.

Taking the title as the premise, killers don't have the right to take a life either. How do we keep them from killing? Or, more universally, how do we keep harmers from harming? If we can solve that, we can open the prison gates and stop studying war, and capital punishment will become a nonissue.

Just before Christmas, here in the Valley, a man was apparently tased, stripped, and restrained to death. The camera tells the tale, and as of this writing is available for view by anyone with Internet access who Googles "dec 22 phx police tased to death"--as I just did, because after I read about it in the Phoenix New Times I couldn't remember the man's name. Perhaps reform will result when such outrages are out in the open rather than swept under the rug.

Of course, the soon-to-be-fact that some recording device is tracking everyone, at all times, will also result in the alteration of culture, and likely the species. Will we be better or worse off thereby?

I know several people who have the mindset of "better to give him the death penalty than have to pay with our tax dollars to clothe and feed him for the next fifty years." This boggles my mind. It's such a cold, impersonal way to look at your fellow human beings. And not to play the blame game, but when I hear this it often comes from supposedly devout Christians - you know, the guys who are all about forgiveness (and generally the same people who want the government to stay out of their lives, but have no problem with the government telling a gay person they can't get married). Hypocrisy is one thing, but cherry-picking which beliefs to follow at any given time, based on how they affect personal convenience, strikes me as something closer to fraud.

It seems to me that the Texas court systems have it backwards. It should be nearly impossible for a death sentence to be issued, not circumvented.

"It would appear that if the board rejected your appeal, your chance of having the sentence overturned by Bush or Perry was zero."

And also by Ann Richards, Mark White, or any other governor perhaps more to your liking. Under Texas law, the board has to recommend clemency; the governor can't do it on his own.

The death penalty in our system is just one more of those things, like war, that will cause people in the future to look upon our era as populated by knuckle draggers.

I think Capital Punishment is something to be condemned at the current time- it's wrong according to our circumstance, but I wouldn't say it's intrinsically wrong, like abortion. In our situation, there is really no good justification for it- in fact, it may even be harmful to society at large.

Of course, when you use a superlative you leave yourself open.
Nobody?
Self-defense.
I didn't like writing this response because am against the death penalty. But . . .

"If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

So I take it you now oppose abortion and would also support a moratorium on all abortions?

Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice.

And consider all of the unborn lives taken every day.... That is a much more lamentable thought. How little I lament as would be appropriate... How little, which makes me quite a poor soul

In order to make a judgement on CP, you have to have experienced both sides of the coin. My mother was murdered by an individual in Texas during a gun shop robbery in 1994, so I have that experience, 14 years before the conviction. There were eye witnesses, more than the one being my sister. No one has the right to take a life, however it happens, so what happens to the one who kills innocents? If it was 'nothing', what's to prevent chaos in society? That's why humans have laws, otherwise we would be equivalent to animals. The DP IS a deterrent to murder, that's why there aren't MORE committed. The number of people executed for murder is minimal compared to the number of innocents murdered. The number of convicted murderers that receive the DP is VERY minimal, the guidelines are VERY tight, and the appeal process is lengthy to insure there aren't false convictions; then the killers usually get their sentence reduced to life as my mother's killer did. As one who knows first-hand, justice and resolution go hand in hand. Who speaks for the victims, they are dead.

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/

A Gandhi parable comes to mind: "A man with a stick suddenly came face to face with a lion and instinctively raised his weapon in self-defense. The man saw that he had only prated about fearlessness when there was none in him. That moment he dropped the stick and found himself free from all fear."

All acts of violence, all the instincts toward destruction, even in the name of self-defense or justice, arise from fear. As individuals, we struggle with fear all our lives. But when that fear is institutionalized--as with the death penalty (among other legal forms of killing)--it marks a civilization made unhealthy with fear.

Besides, the death penalty is unethical because it appropriates another person's life in the hopes of serving others' needs. This is why the deterrent argument is flawed, as well as the appeal to "bring closure" to the families of the victims. It becomes a kind of lethal slavery, an absolute exploitation of the murderer to achieve some social good or emotional relief.

(By the way, when I tell that Gandhi parable to students, someone is bound to point out that the man will be eaten by the lion. As a parable, it works if one considers the Lion as an image of the British Empire. But even as straight narrative, Gandhi--like the warrior he was--would point out that the point is not simply to survive but to do the right thing, and fearlessly, even at the expense of one's life.)

Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice.

Then is it wrong to chose to defend society by removing criminals who prey upon innocent victims. Is not capital punishment a choice made by citizens just as abortion is a choice made by individuals. If you oppose capital punishment you must also oppose abortion. Not just as a personal choice but as a matter of law. One can not have it both ways.

And to answer the question as to why James specified black children consider- Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. James' comment is no different the the leading quote of the British Guardian- both expose the fact that abortion and capital punishment disproportionately affect the black population.

This is a very reductive article that makes the issue of the death penalty subordinate to the idea of race. I have a feeling that the people commenting on this article don't understand what Harris County, Texas is. It is chiefly taken up by the city of Houston, which currently has a lesbian mayor. It has the largest African immigrant population in the United States as well as quite a large African American population, one of the largest arab populations, one of the largest Asian populations, and the largest group in the area is hispanic. It is not an example of a rural county. It is certainly not an example of a county where a small number of black residents are persecuted by a majority white population. To say that justice is less likely to be done there than in other places and to insult Harris county as well as Texas draws attention to your own prejudices and ignorance of the actual situation. I am against the death penaly as well as against a prison sentence of over 20 years for any crime, which makes me far more liberal on the subject than anyone else I have ever met. You might do better to research the topic more highly and go into the real reasons executions are so common rather than simply insulting a county in very innacurate terms. The question is obviously not one of race or racial prejudice, if you know the county, but other factors. Explore those factors and you will be able to dicuss the death penalty in a far more insightful manner than the gaurdian, which is a masterpiece of cruel and poor reporting in the majority of its' stories, and come to understand the real reasons behind the application of the death penalty in certain areas and how it can be changed.

What is it about the death penalty that brings out the worst in everyone?

Just to respond to some of the arguments on here:

1) it is not hypocritical to support abortion and not the death penalty because foetuses' are not sentient beings. It's the same reason I don't accuse you of genocide every time you pick up a bar of soap and kill millions of bacteria. It is the intelligence of the being that is relevant, it's ability to think and feel, not the mere fact it is alive.

2) Sarah McKinley was not 'right' to kill a burglar. I am genuinely concerned that people think burglary justifies a death sentence (what's even more worrying is the poster who imputed the intention of child rape to the burglars, i think it probably reveals something of your mindset that when someone breaks into your house you don't assume they want money but that they are going to rape and kill your children). This poor woman did what she felt she must do to ensure her and her families safety under the circumstances, people aren't infallible. What she did was acceptable but not right.

3) war is sometimes a necessary evil, but no it is not 'right' either.

"Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice."

What a strange, and -- frankly -- bizarre statement to make.

If I understand correctly, "if the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases" -- except when it concerns abortion, where through clever writing, the taking of a new life is reduced to someone's "choice."

A wonder then that the death penalty, with due process and trial by jury can't be put down to others' "choices"; instead, you condemn it from a moral perspective.

Whatever your view on the death penalty, the reality is that if it is abolished, it will not result in fewer deaths. We are not talking about executing white-collar criminals or even people who defraud the government. We are talking about violent people who commit terrible crimes.

Abolishing the death penalty for these people simply transfers the deaths elsewhere in the society, whether that is to the police, who have to deal with more violent criminals on the streets; the prisons, where gang violence is inflicted on fellow inmates; to the general population, who must pay the heaviest price when these people being released. It's hard to see how this is a fairer or more just outcome, even if it does allow us to proclaim our wonderful compassion towards these criminals.

(And let's not kid ourselves, a "life sentence" in prison can be anything but - the Willie Horton case springs to mind. So too does a recent case here in Australia, where Trent Jennings, a psychotic killer was given day release from his mental hospital, where he proceeded to assault and rob an innocent man he met over the internet. People can escape from prisons, too.)

I did like reading DM's advanced thinking on this issue. I wonder how much patience he would have for "complex situations and people" and "radical honesty" if his/her own family suffered at the hands of a violent and dangerous criminal.

You are truly the "voice of the people." No one I know writes so movingly and with such simplicity. You brilliantly evoke the irony of the fact that one who shows remorse and has witnesses to testify to that remorse are more likely to escape death. I hope you'll be writing for another 30 years at least. We need you.

Roger,

"Ebert: I'm curious about why you specify "black children.""

In your discussion of capital punishment, you elaborated on the racial disparities involved, and I fully agree. 

Abortion of African-American children is at a rate far higher than their representation in the population. In many places there is a quiet assumption that this is "better" than letting these children be born because of the populations into which they are often born. Racism and eugenics have been associated with parts of the family planning/abortion industry for a long time, going all the way back to Margaret Sanger (who supported laws restricting the reproduction of "undesirables" and whose organization, Planned Parenthood, today has a thriving business with its many abortion clinics in poor black communities).

Abortion too frequently seems to be one of the "solutions" to the problems in these communities, as well as the incarceration and execution of young black males coming from them. Neither is a solution in any sense.

I oppose both abortion and the death penalty as a matter of principle---as you said, if killing (outside of defense) is wrong, it's wrong in every case. But like you I am additionally disturbed by the racial disparities involved.

“Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as told to the New York Times Magazine, 2009

Ebert: Thanks. It wasn't clear to me what you were referring to.

Re: Ebert: Self-defense and protecting your child have nothing to do with the death penalty.

But in the context of this article, self-defense IS relevant. You've made the statement "nobody has the right to take another life" the entire crux of your argument, yet in the comments you claim there are circumstances where it's clearly not true.

It isn't possible argue against a tautology like "nobody has the right to take another life." You say that sentence is true, I say it's false, neither of us can prove it, and we're stalemated. The only way one who disagrees can proceed is to demonstrate that your axiom leads to results you would find unacceptable. Erik Goodwyn is engaging you in debate the only way he can.

(I actually made a comment similar to Eric’s yesterday, but I guess it didn’t make the cut.)

Also, criminal punishment is supposed to act as a deterrent from crime So That We Don't Do It Again; you can't not do it again if you're dead, so it is no longer meant to be a deterrent; it's just vigilante justice.

This is tricky ground and I would rather have an evil person live on our tab and not put to death someone who it turns out was innocent.

I was glad when John Wayne Gacy was put to death, especially when I heard he didn't want to die. I wonder how it felt for all those kids who were tortured and then put to death by him.

Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice.

Interesting statement. You could just as easily have said: "I would not personally support an execution. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice."

"Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice."

So . . you believe that one person should choose whether another has a right to live? Do you see the conflict here?

I find it pointless to talk about capital punishment when, at it's core, the judicial and penal system is flawed. Instead of having prisoners and jails why don't we have the following :

1) We no longer have prisons but apartment complex where each inmate has his own 1 bedroom apartment. Aside from being fully secure these complexes contain all that is needed for them to be self contained : barber shop, convenient store, chapel, rec room, class rooms etc. Therefore all inmates can actually live a "normal" life.

2) During weekdays they go through supervised force manual labor that benefit the state, such as : repairing roads, buildings bridges, schools. They can also help locally by helping cities maintain their transit system, cleaning the streets etc.

3) On nights and weekends they would have mandatory course for those who haven't finished high school but could also follow college course for those who are inclined. Duties would also be assigned to each inmates because it would be their responsibilities to maintain their complexes clean and functional.

All in all we'd be creating a massive workforce that doesn't cost a dime and that can sustain itself. Imagine the gargantuan fortune saved simply by having a workforce of 2 millions working freely for the government, all the money that could go to schools, infrastructure, healthcare etc...

Who needs capital punishment under that kind of system?

As I stated in my first post, many of my fellow conservatives mistake being anti death penalty with being soft on crime.

A number of ghoulish entries have been written in stylized Chuck Norris tough guy talk that practically celebrates the killing of a fellow human being. I can’t understand the zeal some people have for this barbaric practice.

I don't believe as a nation we hold human life as dear as we make believe, or else we wouldn't go to war so easily. what is the outcome of any war? lots and lots of killing. and for all the numbers of american's lost in the war, take that number times 20 to get the casualties on the other side. I do believe that innocent people get executed, and likewise killers go free. I'm personally of the opinion that the death penalty as a deterent is a total failure, but that there are people on this planet who simply do not deserve to live. shooting someone in a botched robbery is not a crime i would execute someone for, but walking into a mall and start firing at people is. Of course the other side of this whole debate is the mental health of our nation. in the next 10 years the prozac kids will start taking charge and there's no long term studies on what effect the constant medicating of our children will have had on them. It could get worse before it gets better.

Ebert: Self-defense and protecting your child have nothing to do with the death penalty.

True, but it has a great deal to do with the veracity of:
If the taking of life is wrong in some cases, it is wrong in ALL cases.

"Nobody has the right to take another life." Unless not doing so would be inconvenient. Signed: 52+ million babies aborted since 1973.

It's better to kill a convicted killer instead of giving him life in prison so the taxpayers have to pay for his meals and such for the rest of his life.

Is it hypocritical to oppose the death penalty and support abortion?

Not as hypocritical as it is to fight for the "right to life" of an unborn foetus who in an extraordinary number of cases will be born to a slow and agonizing death anyway.

The only cure for the kind of poverty and mass starvation we see in the third world is contraception, and when worse comes to worse, the termination of a foetus which will become a child no one can look after.

It's like this: if you oppose abortion, you are NOT "pro-life". You are pro-suffering.

And yet, we think nothing of meting out death to anyone on the other side of a war. Do they get trials? Witnesses for their defense? Recommendations from Pardon boards? All we need is a suspicion, and off to hell they go. We wring our hands over killing our own citizens, but think nothing of killing the citizens of countries we're mad at, and often for stupid or illegitimate reasons.

A well-written article, and I think you make your stance on the death penalty quite clear, and I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. (And I am so, so sorry that people are dragging abortion into this discussion as though it belongs here.)

The taking of a life is indeed NOT wrong in all cases as you state - the taking of an INNOCENT life, though, is wrong. I also don't know if you've noticed, but murder rates in Texas have gone down since the days before Bush and Perry took office, which is a convenient fact that you've overlooked.

Finally, your logic on the death penalty actually causing MORE deaths is the most convuluted piece of bull that I've ever heard. So someone will unintentionally kill another person and then become a mass murderer of witnesses in order to prevent being given the death penalty? If someone was capable of murdering to prevent the death penalty, would that person not also be capable of murder to prevent life in prison? You are really stretching my abiltiy to suspend disbelief - this is not a movie, Roger.

Everyone dies. They really, really do. When someone breaks the conventions of society, the society needs to take action to preserve the social order. Life imprisonment is simply the death penalty in slow motion. They are removed permanently from society. There is no thought of rehabilitation. Expediting death over time's crawl to the inevitable doesn't bother me greatly.
The death penalty is not a deterrent; no one ever commits a crime with the thought of being caught. My issue with the death penalty in Illinois was the haphazard manner of implementation. The crime had to be heinous enough, which meant multiple murders or a murder of a protected class (i.e., a government employee). We rated the murder(s) before seeking the death penalty. Post-conviction, there was the pre-sentence appeal for compassion mingled with the victim impact statements. No Reasonable Doubt was sufficient to convict and execute. This, in the state of tortured confessions, confession statements concocted from 'what ifs' and dreams and witness testimony.
To me, No Reasonable Doubt should be replaced with No Doubt Whatsoever. Confessions and witness testimony are not sufficient. If there is the tiniest possibility of doubt, if the evidence is not absolute, the sentence should not be death. (If there is no GSR, or seman, or the teeth marks don't match or the glove does not fit...) But, if there is absolutely no doubt, punishment should be swift.
Ignore emotion, ignore the victim, ignore the defendent; concentrate on the evidence.

What can one say about the death penalty? Forgiveness, understanding, compassion, and hope are petals on the flower of humanity. But! Before you reach that virtuous height, there are the merciless thorns of capital punishment. If someone I loved had been killed by whoever, I would want that person to die. I take a step back and realize that loved one is buried or cremated because of another. Crystalline. Such an odd concept. He or she made he or she stop moving and thinking. How does that make me feel? There is no hatred, just the facts. Sadness for the loss comes, yes, but to hate a killer is pointless. Is there room for empathy? I am reminded of 1985's "Come and See," when the main character starts firing upon the Hitler painting and history treads backwards all the way to the baby Fuhrer sitting with his mother. The anger that the character feels, popping shots off, is an island upon itself, sinking into an ancient dead sea of frustration directed at our entire species in general. Killers and war have always been and will always be. You cannot reverse the past or expect primitive nature to change in the future. Afterall, in the grand scheme of things, we're all just one toe out of the cave and a heel away from worshipping the sun.

When the character stopped at the clean-slate infant, innocent and with a whole universe of choices before him, I honestly cried. Apart from influences, expectations, instabilities, wants, and circumstance, the monster we know began as this little tot. One of the few moments in cinema I have ever been utterly shaken to my core. If every killer were reduced and redefined in such a manner, I believe I would be more compassionate. Alas, the credits roll, and I see killers as cancer and lethal injection as the chemo. In 2012 America, I do not have the patience for murderous compassion.

Thank you. For a poignant, personal, reasoned contribution to the debate. I am a lawyer who is against the death penalty. I take seriously my role as a steward for justice, and believe in the foundational value of our criminal justice system that best to let 9 guilty men go free than to have one innocent man imprisoned. Statistics, the freedom project, and so much more has firmly established that our criminal justice system, including, the death penalty are critically flawed, and innocent people have been murdered by the state. Murder requires intent, and each time a human being is led to the death chamber, the intent is to kill that person, in the eyes of the common law that constitutes murder.

I have never understood jubilation in the death of another whether it be a convict or bin laden. Death is death and should be treated accordingly. I am a rare citizen in that I have toured he housing unit at San Quentin in California wherein prisoners awaiting the death penalty reside. I have been in the gas chamber room. It is sobering, and horrifying to think of the immeasurable lives taken under the pretense that it somehow balances the scale for another life lost.

We are human beings, and as a part of society, perhaps the thing that should separate us from the criminal element is the ability to rise above, forgive, understand, and treat human life with the sanctity that the criminal did not. Taking a life to pay for another devalues the regard we place on life in our society and in many ways makes us just as cupable as the criminal.

My position on the death penalty is the same as my position on torture.

Even if we could be sure with 100% certainty that we were executing the guilty person, and even if we knew that torture worked to provide reliable information 100% of the time, I would still be against them.

The death penalty creates killers; torture creates torturers.

And that is too high a price to pay.

Saying "Nobody has the right to take another life," is wrong: Of course you have the right to kill people who threaten your own life or other people’s lives.

State-sponsored executions simply kill people who should have been killed on the spot, at the time of their crime. By an existential technicality they were allowed to live.

If the execution of the innocent are a concern, what about releasing the guilty? A simple comparison would decide this: If more innocent people are executed than people killed, raped, or mutilated by released criminals, go with the lesser evil and execute.

". . . it is impossible that the judicial system functions with 100% accuracy."

I agree.

"On the basis of Death Row inmates found innocent and released in Illinois and other states, it is impossible that all 387 people executed during their terms were guilty."

I disagree. It is entirely possible that all 387 people executed in Texas were guilty. It is perhaps probable that some percentage of them were innocent. But it is NOT impossible that they were all guilty. May sound like quibbling, but this is a discussion that is laced with extremisms that lead to reason-ending uselessness, and I'd prefer the statements be made with the most honesty.

And yet you've expended so many electrons defending Jack Kevorkian.

"It would appear that if the board rejected your appeal, your chance of having the sentence overturned by Bush or Perry was zero."

Correct. The governor of Texas does not have the power to pardon a prisoner, reprieve or commute a sentence without the written recommendation of a majority of the board. http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/exec_clem/exec_clem.html

One more point:

"If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

This is what I consider a useless and oversimplified generalization. The form of the posed argument is not even valid: "If X, then X in all cases." Why?

The fact of the matter is: the taking of life is NOT wrong in all cases. Is it wrong to take the life of someone in defense of you and your family, if that is the only option to save yourself and others? No. So then taking a human life is NOT wrong in all cases.

Whether taking a life is right or wrong in the first place is a determination we make as a society, based on our own subjective ethical philosophy. The universe doesn't care whether a being lives or dies. It's just us living things that apply the labels "right" and "wrong". This means we as a society get to decide. If we have decided that it is "right" to execute someone as punishment for them having killed others, then it is "right".

I agree, Roger. Personally, I would think being locked in a cage for 30 years a worse fate, but I dont know. One exception I can think of is, as stated by someone above, protection of self or family etc. Cheers,

I have been conflicted by the death penalty all my life.

One major example. I remember vividly when Sirhan Sirhan murdered Robert F. Kennedy. That creep changed the course of America more than any single person in my lifetime. History would have been completely different when RFK defeated Nixon - which I still contend he would have - that fall in 1968. I had no compunction at all icing the fucker back then. As I saw him make his various parole appeals thru the decades, I've never relented in my hatred for the creep. The whiny old bastard showed up begging again recently on TV. It dawned on me. I could still personally blow that fucker away to this day. Then celebrate with a good steak.

And I still consider myself a pacifist. Go figure.

Hello Roger,

‘Nobody has the right to take another life’

I would complement this with: ‘but sometimes, it is somebody’s duty to do so’.

I think killing someone is acceptable if there is no alternative solution, and if it is done to prevent an even greater wrong. But it is very difficult to make sure there is no alternative because we never have enough information. So when evaluating others we should reserve our judgments, because we rarely know all the facts. Exercise empathy and forgiveness for mistakes.

And on this basis, the death penalty is wrong because it is total and definitive, and there are simple alternatives: lifetime incarceration, and, in many cases, rehabilitation. Our society can easily afford it.

On the same basis, a soldier can kill because as a member of society, he/she has surrendered part of his responsibility to the society. The soldier trusts that his society is asking him to do wrong to prevent a greater wrong.

And a mother can abort her child for exactly the reverse reason, as a member of society she has received part of the responsibility for the child to come, and she may believe she is incapable of doing this duty adequately. The abortion is a wrong, to prevent a greater wrong.

Best regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park,Qc

"Tattaglia lost a son, and I lost a son. Is vengeance gonna get you your son back? Or mine? I forego this vengeance."

There's a sentiment pretty frequent in the movies and sometimes in reality. I can't say how I'd feel close-up. There was a murder in my family 3 generations ago. Nobody did anything about it because great-great grosspater happened to be the County Judge. He knocked his wife down the stairs in a drunken fit and she died.

Tracing my family history on that side of the family -- "what American knows anything about his grandparents?" -- it looked to me as though a mistrust of men had probably trickled down through the generations. It had spinsters and nuns.

I've been shot at, vaguely, threatened with death a few times, and was once attacked by a quite huge man with a broken beer bottle, without any apparent motive. I don't have any hard feelings about any of that. On the other hand, 20 years later I'm still ready to slap the false teeth out of a certain Superintendent of Schools, for starters.

How angry do you have to be then, to find satisfaction in the state stepping in and killing someone who has killed one of your own, whom you knew and loved intimately? We won't learn the status of the victim's feelings in a court of law.

Someone posting above not un-blatantly pointed out a superstition that does keep death penalties and that kind of retribution going. Nobody kills "evil" by killing an individual who is accused of doing it.

This "war on evil," as Dubya Junior re-phrased it after the manufactured phrase "Crusade against evil" got outed as too obvious a manipulation of fanatical religious sentiment. It's only expanded.

That "evil" has gotten so big it seems to have become necessary to legislate that any American can be tossed in jail and left to rot for no other reason than suspicion.

Come to think of it, aren't there more serial killers in America now than ever? Is it because Charlie Manson's still alive? I doubt it.

I have been perusing the blog since my last entires, and just a few general things towards some....

Many think there is no hope for us because of our primate roots. However, I believe despite our biology, and despite the paradox of the destructive nature of social evolution and its transcendent power, we can reach a great understanding of ourselves and start to create aggregate changes in our DNA, that eventually shift our whole physiologies -brain and body. Our brains already are getting smarter and smarter with each generation-so it has surpassed its biological roots as it is. But, we must use these fast changes to our advantage, and THIS means recognizing the entire structure of the human animal.

The medieval thinking patterns, that seem to still mill around-"We can take people out of the middle ages, but you can't take the middle ages out of the people," also does not have to remain true.

And I also agree, we do need a poet or an artist to bring from out beneath the rubble of hidden human thought,lying in waiting in its twitching, slithering madness, a shining realm of new day blossoms that lift their golden heads and float beyond the broken gates

However, most of us might agree, that these works of enlightenment may not hold true effect until many generations after the are created.

Capital punishment proponents always seem to ignore the fundamental flaw in the logic of this act - it is a man-made paradox. You can symbolize the act all you want; however, the fact is a human executioner is flipping a switch, pulling a lever, turning a key, or performing some other act with premeditation to end the life of another human being (who is strapped down). That is the very definition of first degree murder. By their very own logic, that executioner should now be put to death. And then the person who killed him, then the person who killed him.... on and on until we're all dead. The idea of killing someone to show everyone that killing is wrong baffles me.

If you truly want to punish someone who is convicted of murder then lock them up in a dark cell, alone, with enough food and water to barely survive. Create Hell on Earth for these people. At least then we could pull them out if we make a mistake. Life in our current prison system is too easy (and too expensive) for these people.

F.Y.I

Peruse some recent back issues of Scientific Mind, and you will find articles written by neuroscientists on the sociopath.

They argue that the evidence shows these individuals who make up the large majority of seriel killers, have a malfunction in the brain, related, I believe to the survival killing mechanism we all have, and cannot help themselves.

They are researching methods to treat this disorder, and say it is a physiological problem just as heart irregularities, diabetes or other bodily disorders.

They even go further to interject philosophical ideologies, suggesting the sociopath cannot be blamed for these problems, in the same way those born with other abnormalities are not. (Simple brain scans can diagnose the disorder).

Again, this is NOT my research, but I find it compelling none-the-less.

What about the number of people from all over the country who have mysteriously died while doing their job and exposing the truth? The public is provided flimsy cover-ups wrapped in “official reports” that stink to high heavens! The truth remains the only constant throughout time, but poke around it and your time is over.
Being soft killed is also taking of life- seemingly not as brutal as execution, or as evil as assassination. But knowing about the (bisphenol a) we are swimming in, the chemtrails dumped on us, ( war game ducting for 3D-imagery more important than human health?) and the toxins poured into our drinking water… We are all dead men, women, and children walking.

I'll probably be the only contradictory vote here, but that is ok. First off, I'd like to compliment Mr. Ebert on his movie reviews, but I really wish he'd keep his ultra-liberal political views to himself. If it matters, I'm clearly and totally in favor of capital punishment, but prefer to keep my views to myself. Call up your buddies Streisand and Redford if you feel the need to air your views out, but leave them off the internet. There's already way too much self-indulgent political blabbering going on without you adding to the babble.

Read this article and tell me you think this man deserves to live, at the expense of the tax payer, receiving shelter, food, books, medical care and entertainment for the rest of his life without having to work, or if he deserves to pay with his life for what he did.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-12-27/indiana-babysitter-girl-death/52241628/1?csp=obnetwork

Nobody has a right to take a life? It looks like the only ones that do are the ones that actually do it and then get to spend the rest of their lives getting a free meal and bed. Yeah it might not be the most pleasant of living standards but it beats the alternative of being put to death. I understand the concerns about putting the wrong person to death but their are many who we know for sure are guilty at present or in the past. Should people like John Wayne Gacy or Richard Dahmer have been spared. Should tax payer money have treated them to three meals a day and a warm bed? Sometimes some people have done acts so heinous that death is the best alternative. It gives the families of the victims closure. I remember hearing one woman who lost a two year old daughter to the bombing in Oklahoma saying that she didn't understand why others thought Timothy Mcveigh shouldn't be put to death. She wondered why a guy who called her daughter collateral damage should be allowed to live.His death gave the mother some closure and maybe even comfort knowing that Mcveigh was no longer being protected and fed on her tax dollar. Yeah executing another even when they are a murderer shouldn't be a joyous occasion but if we know for sure that people have committed these acts justice should be dealt does. If others think we should allow some of the hardened murderers to live maybe they can volunteer to give their tax money to house and feed these people for the rest of their lives. I doubt one of you(Roger included) would volunteer tax money for this person. If any of you would like a volunteer tax program for this reply a yes to my post and put the debate to rest.

People keep saying that it's to protect the society but they don't realize that it's the society that raises these serial killers. I've seen a few documentaries about them and always they were victims of bullying, abuse, etc. It's not their fault that the circumstances they were born into drove them to be like them.

I don't see death penalty as eye for an eye punishment. It's actually hypocritical. And I read somewhere that it's actually more expensive to have death penalty than to keep them locked up.

If society wants to decrease the murder rate, they should just add 5 or 10 more years in psychology field. I read in a book from Urban Outfitters called "Things that Will Scare the Sh*t out of You" that there are cases when patients of psychologists/therapists/psychiatrists (I don't really know the difference and I don't remember which one it said) either stalk or kill them.

I agree, but then, this.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/06/now_i_lay_me_down_to_sleep.html

I'm reminded of a couple of books, one well known, one not so much.

The first: Fellowship of the Ring. Frodo says that Gollum deserves death. Gandalf replies, "Deserves it? I daresay he does. But some who die deserve life. Can you give it them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

The second: The Long Run, by Daniel Keyes Moran. The main character, Trent, is discussing with an AI named Ring.

Ring: What truth do you know?
Trent: Not much. I think - killing is wrong.
Ring: Why?
Trent: I don't know. Once I get beyond that point, things are real fuzzy. The more complex the argument becomes, the easier it beomces to refute. <shrug> Killing is wrong.
Ring: That, Ring said, with the absolute seriousness that only an AI without a genetic predisposition to humor is capable of, a place to start.

Personally I would have no problem if no one was ever judicially killed in Canada ever again. I've heard many times that studies have shown that the death penalty fails as a deterrent to murder. I think that makes sense - someone who does not value the life of another person is also unlikely to value their own life, and will not fear death as much as spending the rest of their life in jail.

That being said, I do see a place for the death penalty. If we can convict a person of 2 separate murders, in 2 separate trials, then I think we've demonstrated that the person is likely a killer (it's harder to incorrectly convict someone of murder twice, after all), but also that given the chance they will have killed and killed again and will likely kill again given the opportunity.

Therefore, I think the death penalty, if it existed, should only be used in cases where the convicted person has been convicted in two separate trials of two separate murders.

Love this great state of Texas. Been a Houstonian all my life and don't intend to go anywhere else. I'll support the death penalty tooth and nail. To think you can commit any crime you want and get just a life sentence.
To think that we enlightened "Christian" Americans are so arrogant that we think we can rehabilitate any evil that happens on our soil or deal with it with peace forgiveness and understanding.
Perhaps we would save some folks and rehabilitate some. Perhaps some criminals would repeat their crimes.
Who knows.

Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice.

There are to many logical fallacies within this statement, I don't know where to begin.

"...it is impossible that the judicial system functions with 100% accuracy..."

I'm a Texan, born and raised, but I agree 100% with this statement. That is why I am generally against the death penalty. In the case of absolute certainty of guilt (confession, video evidence of the deed, etc), I have no problem with it, but if there is even the slightest shred of doubt, there should be no death sentence. Too many cases have been overturned after years when new evidence comes to light. And in the words of William Blackstone, "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

"If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

This statement, however, I take exception to. At best it's naive, at worst it is willfully stupid. Saying something is wrong in all cases is an absolute that allows no exceptions. And there are always exceptions. Take the example someone else mentioned about a single teenage mother protecting her infant from a man with a hunting knife. She shot and killed him. Was that wrong? If not, then taking life is not wrong in all cases.

I don't know if you've seen Fourteen Days in May.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/fourteen-days-in-may/

This documentary about Edward Earl Johnson and the death penalty has haunted me ever since I saw it in 1988.

Can you turn off the italics in the comments please?

They are tough to read.

What can one say about the death penalty? Forgiveness, understanding, compassion, and hope are petals on the flower of humanity. But! Before you reach that virtuous height, there are the merciless thorns of capital punishment. If someone I loved had been killed by whoever, I would want that person to die. I take a step back and realize that loved one is buried or cremated because of another. Crystalline. Such an odd concept. He or she made he or she stop moving and thinking. How does that make me feel? There is no hatred, just the facts. Sadness for the loss comes, yes, but to hate a killer is pointless. Is there room for empathy? I am reminded of 1985's "Come and See," when the main character starts firing upon the Hitler painting and history treads backwards all the way to the baby Fuhrer sitting with his mother. The anger that the character feels, popping shots off, is an island upon itself, sinking into an ancient dead sea of frustration directed at our entire species in general. Killers and war have always been and will always be. You cannot reverse the past or expect primitive nature to change in the future. Afterall, in the grand scheme of things, we're all just one toe out of the cave and a heel away from worshipping the sun.

When the character stopped at the clean-slate infant, innocent and with a whole universe of choices before him, I honestly became misty-eyed. Apart from influences, expectations, instabilities, wants, and circumstance, the monster we know began as this little tot. If every killer were reduced and redefined in such a manner, I believe I would be more compassionate. Alas, the credits roll, and I see killers as cancer and lethal injection as the chemo. In 2012 America, I do not have the patience for murderous compassion.

Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for a wonderful piece of writing. Your compassionate approach to human life in all of its vast forms, beautiful and horrible, has always been evident in your work. Killing an evil human being doesn't increase the beauty and the good in life; it's more like turning down the bulb on a movie projector, dimming one's view of all aspects of the human experience.

I did not have a chance to read all comments, but in case no one else mentioned this: the Governor of Oregon has recently decided to stop any executions. His first time around as governor 14 years ago, he allowed 2 prisoners to be executed and it did not rest well with him. Now, faced with another execution, he followed his conscience. For more information, go here:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/11/gov_john_kitzhaber_oregon_deat.html

So if ten years ago one of your grandchildren were raped, tortured and murdered in some garage, you would be fine with the killer being alive today -- still able to laugh, sing, watch tv, taste food, look at the sky, read books, fall in love -- all while your grandchild's life till is about twenty-five thousand sunsets short. You're a better man than me, Roger, and have achieved a level of sainthood that I simply do not aspire to.

Ebert: I would not be fine. Not at all.

But our society must express our higher values.

I have far smaller problem with a person taking personal revenge than I do with executions performed by society.

Ebert: "I have far smaller problem with a person taking personal revenge than I do with executions performed by society."

Roger, do you have a problem with incarcerations performed by society? Or should imprisonment be a personal thing?

I proceed from the belief that violence is wrong except where it is necessary to preserve and protect the lives of others. Once the threat a person poses to society has been neutralised through incarceration, my interest in enacting further violence stops. I just don't care. I could probably work myself into a state of mind where I felt differently: I'm not going to.

From Stanley Kubrick:

"The violence in the story [A Clockwork Orange] has to be given sufficient dramatic weight so that the moral dilemma it poses can be seen in the right context. It is absolutely essential that Alex is seen to be guilty of a terrible violence against society, so that when he is eventually transformed by the State into a harmless zombie you can reach a meaningful conclusion about the relative rights and wrongs. If we did not see Alex first as a brutal and merciless thug it would be too easy to agree that the State is involved in a worse evil in depriving him of his freedom to choose between good and evil. It must be clear that it is wrong to turn even unforgivably vicious criminals into vegetables, otherwise the story would fall into the same logical trap as did the old, anti-lynching Hollywood westerns which always nullified their theme by lynching an innocent person. Of course no one will disagree that you shouldn't lynch an innocent person -- but will they agree that it's just as bad to lynch a guilty person, perhaps even someone guilty of a horrible crime?"

The problem with death penalty debates is that it's too easy to confuse what is "right" with what is "just".

If you kill an innocent human being, I have no problem believing you have lost your right to life. You deserve to die. No question.

But that is a completely separate question as to whether our government (or any government) has the right to terminate the life of one of its citizens.

Allowing a government the power to execute its own citizens that are allegedly suspected of crimes is unethical and undemocratic. Indeed, the death penalty violates the 5th and 8th amendments to our constitution, especially with its current arbitrary and/or profoundly racist application.

So yes, if you're a rapist murdering thug, you deserve to die. You don't deserve to keep breathing. The world would be better off with you gone. But that is not the question. The question is only whether you want to give a government the right to decide who lives and dies. And there's simply no rational, logical, moral, or constitutional defense for a legal death penalty.

Since only 1 in 300 murders actually results in an execution, there's not enough data to determine if the death penalty is a deterrent or not:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate

Only about one in 300 homicides results in an execution.

Professor Wolfers said the answer to the question of whether the death penalty deterred was “not unknowable in the abstract,” given enough data.

“If I was allowed 1,000 executions and 1,000 exonerations, and I was allowed to do it in a random, focused way,” he said, “I could probably give you an answer.”

To resolve this, think of citizenship as nothing more than belonging to a club. As long as you abide by a club's rules (i.e., a country's laws), you may continue to be a member.

So what happens when you violate a club's rules? Well, you don't get killed--at least not in any club I know of. At worst, you simply get kicked out.

I think the same approach should be taken for crimes that would ordinarily warrant the death penalty: Banishment, essentially. True, Australia is no longer available, but there's got to be a large enough island somewhere to house those who have rejected the basic rules of society. There are currently less than 20,000 people on death row worldwide--barely a small city.

It would no doubt become a pretty rough place, but not necessarily a death sentence. The "non-citizens" could grow their own food, fish, etc. An international force would circle the island to prevent escape (at minimal cost), but otherwise it would be the law of the jungle.

This solution should please everybody: We remove these sociopaths from our society, without the moral dilemma of institutionalized revenge murder. And without the cost of life-long imprisonment. And I suspect the deterrent effect would be quite high. Finally, if the banished person is later found to be innocent, at least there's a chance he's still alive and can be returned to normal society. (Quite possibly to become a very successful Wall Street banker, or maybe even a Texas governor.)

If nothing else, I can imagine several interesting movie premises based on this idea. Maybe it's already be done?

Hi Roger

I don't know but maybe I should watch Dead Man Walking all over again.

Roger,
you may wish to modify your original post - many people are giving you flack for the "If it is wrong, it is wrong in all cases." I think your original intent was that you were talking solely of judicial executions, ordered by the state against its own citizens. You did not specifically exclude situations of self-defense, and that's where you're getting backwash.

That being said, I do have a significant problem with your response to the last comment (the last anyway, as I read - there may be others in the queue you haven't posted yet). You wrote, "I have far smaller problem with a person taking personal revenge than I do with executions performed by society."

This is huge. A revenge killing is still an execution, except that the person deciding to do the killing and performing it is a single, private individual. With a state execution, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, the execution is decided upon by a jury of disinterested peers of the accused, and performed by professionals, after a trial in which all the evidence has been weighed and a judgement made as to guilt or innocence.

What happens if I think you are guilty of murdering one of my children, and find out later that I'm wrong? That, in my opinion, is a worse crime than the original killing.

The entire reason we have law and all its mechanisms - police, courts, prisons - is to avoid private justice. The entire reason we have a jury of 12 people is the principle that it is harder for 12 people to be all wrong, than it is for one.

I've seen on the news several instances of people in Canada, family members of victims of violent crime, calling for the death penalty to be reinstated. I sympathize for their loss, but I disagree. They don't want justice. They want revenge. They're not the same. See Batman Begins.

Ebert: "If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

"Self-defense and protecting your child have nothing to do with the death penalty."

"I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice."

2011.06.29: "assisted suicide... I believe should certainly be allowed under strict medical and other guidelines"

2011.10.16: "What concerns me is why suffering is so often considered to be necessary before death. A beheading, a hanging, a firing squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, these are straightforward enough. But to be subjected to hours of unspeakable torment?"

So taking a human life is wrong in "all" cases, except in:

a)self defence
b)protecting your child - unless it hasn't been born yet and you choose to kill it
c)assisting a suicide for medical reasons

But if the deed were to be done, best be done quickly with a minimum of suffering.

Can you think of any other cases where taking a human life may be 'right'? I am thinking of child abductors like John Wayne Gacy, who put children through "hours of unspeakable torment" before they died. When pressed on the point earlier, you wrote

I would not be fine. Not at all.

But our society must express our higher values.

What kind of higher values does our society project if our message to these sick serial killers is if you get caught, punishment would be room and board , shelter and protection for the rest of your life, so you can jerk off reliving your victims torment in memory while dreaming of the day you might escape and do it again?

I don't envy your task as moderator for this shitstorm, Roger, and please don't take this personally. I haven't seen Into the Abyss yet but if I had I would imagine I would feel sympathy for Michael Perry and Jason Burkett. But guys like Gacy are a different animal altogether.

Werner Herzog, you need to make another documentary, a companion piece to Into the Abyss, about Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, perpetrators of the Cheshire murders.

Roger,

One wrong execution is enough to terminate the whole process, and as stated by many it most likely has happened more than once.

While I have a lot of issues with the Catholic church i,e., their position on abortion, they are consistent with both that position and the executing of prisoners.

Mike

I used to be pro-death penalty. I believed that there were some crimes that were so heinous that you forfeited your right to life. Frankly, I still do. Growing up in the Chicago suburbs in the 70's and 80s, it was difficult to not be struck by the idea that the only reason I wasn't one of John Wayne Gacy's targets was because of where my parents had chosen to live. I even stayed up to watch the news the night he was executed, to see what I would feel. I felt nothing, and frankly, there were few protesters. And if the death penalty only existed for people like him, who did what he did, with staggering amounts of evidence, I might feel the same way today.

But it doesn't. The line has moved a lot closer to "a life for a life." The evidence isn't absolute. And the older I get, with children and a wife and a bit more experience with the world, I have come to realize that executing someone for a crime they didn't commit is one of the worst things we can do as Society, and I do not support that being done in my name.

If you want to change the argument a bit, I look at it like this: I would rather 100 murderers walk the streets than execute one innocent person. I know others who believe the opposite - that it is more important to punish the guilty. Those people confuse me. I don't know why they're so angry. Of course, if it was my son, I'd be furious and want revenge. That's why they don't let grieving family members make this decision.

"Saying "Nobody has the right to take another life," is wrong: Of course you have the right to kill people who threaten your own life or other people’s lives."

Defending life is not the same as taking a life. The former is not initiator; it's responding to someone attempt to take take a life.

I read your piece on the same day this happened: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/01/okla-teen-mom-kills-intruder-/1.

While I'm an advocate of the death penalty, and pro-life (which I don't believe represents conflicting value systems), I look at this one example and think this mother had every right to take the life of the intruder.

I really enjoy your blog. The fact that it's not "just" about movies (as if that wouldn't be enough) brings me back time and time again. Although it seems superfluous to someone of your stature, I’ve nominated you for the Versatile Blogger Award, which, if you have not already won, I hope you’ll accept and enjoy! The rules can be found on my page: http://ahmjustsayin.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/instead-of-what-i-should-be-doing/

I'd be willing to be a large sum of money that at least 95% of the anti-death penalty posters on here have not been touched by real violence. If any of your mothers, daughters, sisters, etc. are brutally raped, robbed, and murdered, I would also be willing to bet your perspective on this issue might change just a bit. And if it didn't change, you simply aren't human.

Roger-

Excellent post. I was for years an opponent of the death penalty..but something happened a few years back that opened my eyes to the fact that, as much I'd like to believe otherwise, there are times when it is appropriate.

I haven't had the opportunity to peruse all of the comments posted thus far, so forgive me if I reiterate a point /information someone has already made/shared here.

I live in the Lake Worth/West Palm Beach area of South Florida. In November 2009, I watched with great sadness as our community was turned upside down by the horrifying news that a man named Paul Merhige had shot and killed four members of his family as they gathered for dinner on Thanksgiving night, among them six year old Makayla Sitton and Merhige's sisters, one of whom was pregnant . I'm sure you remember the story.

Merhige-who was apprehended about a week later, in no small part due to the coverage his crimes received on America's Most wanted- had his trial enter the penalty phase a few months ago. Deliberations were over and he was , of course. found guilty. There was no question of his guilt, really. He had wanted to kill his family for twenty years.

Over the objections of little Makayla's parents , Merhige was allowed to accept a plea deal in which the death penalty was commuted in favor of seven consecutive life sentences.

This is a man who arrived to Thanksgiving dinner with a plan in place to murder his family, who successfully shot and killed four of them -including a beautiful little girl and a pregnant woman- and who afterwards willingly fled the area to escape the consequences of his actions. This was no random act. Merhige knew what he was doing and once he had done it, he made every effort to get away with it.

My point is...where is the justice in his continued existence? Why should this man be allowed to live (and at at the expense of decent, law abiding taxpayers, I might add)- while the victims he left behind have to rebuild their lives from the wreckage he left them with, knowing all the while that he has been granted the same gift of life that he willingly robbed others of?

I do believe in and try to live according to the concept of mercy...but I also believe in justice. Merhige defaulted on his humanity when he made a conscious choice to point that gun at four people and pull the trigger. He made a decision that night to abandon every principle of decency , honor and integrity..every modicum of compassion and trust.... that we as a society hold to be so important . He made this choice in favor of satiating his blood lust. I can't even pretend to be on the fence concerning this - had Merhige been executed, I would have been perfectly satisfied that the right thing had been done. Not because of a need for vengeance, but because when a cancer threatens the whole organism with its destructive properties, the healthy action is to remove it.

That's why I changed my opinion. I now think that there are times when, sadly, the death penalty is exactly the correct punishment, necessary to remove monsters from our midst.

Okay, I've read the whole article and will now add a few comments to those of a few days ago.

Blacks are prone to violence? Notice that the expert's name wasn't given. Until I can read for myself the peer reviewed research that this testimony was based on, I consider this psychologist's behavior unethical and subject to APA review/sanction. I have very serious concerns about this kind of blanket testimony. In my experience, this statement is just way too general and ambiguous.

The fact that Henry Lee Lucas got a commute, for ANY reason, should demonstrate clearly that the process is too frivolous. That guy had absolutely no remorse and even bragged often about his degradation of the victims and subsequent killings.

I hadn't considered this before but Ebert, you might be right....maybe the death penalty DOES in fact serve as a reason to kill. You know from watching 'Criminal Minds' if nothing else, that when someone is abducted and the victim is allowed to see that person's face, it is a certainty that the victim will be killed. The abductor cannot risk identification. I think it's logical to assume that this principle applies when multiple victims who can identify the perpetrator are involved. The result would be that ALL of them are killed.

Research clearly demonstrates that the death penalty does NOT act as a deterrent so we should abandon that idea and move forward. To me, it's as stupid as saying that having been molested as a child is what makes you into a gay adult.

The death penalty is handed out unequally, and I'm not even addressing the disparity across ethnic/cultural lines. I'm talking here about multiple people involved in the SAME crime who acted in tandem yet one gets life and the other death. It's just too frivolous, based on the whim of respective juries.

We ARE executing innocent people, that's a fact. Think about all the innocent people who have been exonerated by The Innocence Project, yet who were presumed guilty and would have been executed. Why would we assume that before this group of people formed and began working on behalf of innocent prisoners, no other innocent victims were ever put to death? And I have to agree that if even one single innocent life is taken, regardless of where a false step might have occurred in the process, we shouldn't be doing it, period.

On a higher, more philosophical level, I just don't believe that this is a decision people should be making, about whose life has value and whose doesn't. You can easily see how it carries to the extreme....who deserves to live and who deserves to die, and for what reason....eg. the Holocaust.

So those are my thoughts at this point.

When someone is breaking in or going to hurt someone you do have the right to stop them any way you can.

Let me start off by saying I DO NOT support capital punishment! Not because i think there is something wrong with an eye for an eye but because I cannot back the execution of even one innocent man to get a hundred guilty ones. Having said that lets puncture some holes in alot of the rhetoric on this site.

First, there is not a disprportionate number of minorities given the death penalty. If you look at the number of crimes committed by race (instead of comparing death penalties per population) you will find there is zero disparity. Same with poverty. It is an incontrovertible fact that young black and hispanic men commit murder at much higher rates than their proportion of the population.

Second, making assumptions about a county's death penalty numbers is ridiculous. There are counties in Texas that go years with NO murders. There are others that can't go weeks without one. A violent county will assuredly have a lot of death penalty cases; the non-violent ones will have zero.

There are several reasons I oppose the death penalty:

1. Mistakes can be made and have been, as DNA evidence has shown.

2. Imprisonment alone does not curtail dissent but a death penalty does. Havel and Mandela were imprisoned but not silenced. You may say it cannot happen in the USA. But human nature is the same everywhere, and bad things have happened here in the past, e.g., lynching, so we should not make this assumption.

3. Not having a death penalty sets an example for the world. Other countries would not then have the moral standing to curtail dissent by putting people to death (see #2).

4. "Vengance is sour" as Orwell wrote in an essay. Our laws should be objective and not swayed by emotion. For this reason I do not agree with the practice of victims' families speaking during the sentencing of a criminal for the purpose of "closure".

5. Our society as a whole should set the example that murder is not acceptable. That is best done by imprisoning our worst criminals, not by mimicing their behavior.

"Nobody has the right to take another life."

Well, that will be news to all of our soldiers who fought in all of our wars.

I understand the pain of the guard who made that overly-simplistic statement. I understand that the death penalty is a complicated moral issue. And I appreciate the eloquence with which you have made the liberal argument against it in this excellent post.

I appreciate it so much that I did not automatically comment on it when I read it right after you posted it, Roger. I haven't read the other comments yet. (But will tonight). I wanted to go away and think about it. Stew on it. Marinate in your thoughts here. It is a troubling issue, and it troubles me.

My thoughts on in it gel around 5 aspects:

1. Governor Ryan's commutation of all death sentences in Illinois. I, a Republican, do not hold him in high regard for that cowardly act. Note to Governors: if you can't fulfill the laws or your state because you can't sleep at night, resign. Do not take the cowardly way out and thwart the hard work of lawmakers, prosecutors, and juries. Resign, and let someone take office who can fulfill the duties. Then campaign against the law. Be honorable. But, so few politicians have the courage of their convictions to resign and give up power. I can only think of one who had that kind of courage recently. Govenor Ryan was a corrupted in office, and this commutation was just another of his moral failings.

2. The pain of the guards. I have a different take on that. I put that squarely on the shoulders of liberals, who have dragged out the executions for decades. Not only did it lose it's deterrent effect as a consequence of this delay, but you've forced the guards to be caretakers for so long. You (liberals generally) put the guards at risk physically and emotionally, and then bemoan the damage that causes. If we are to have a death penalty, and that is currently the will of the majority of your fellow citizens I believe, then it needs to be speedy.

3. The skewed perspective of focusing on the inmates and guards, and minimizing the heinousness of the crimes. You can only get to the take in this article by minimizing the crimes and focusing on the convict. You mention that word once, in the context of Ryan's commutations, but not at all in the context of the actual murders that were committed by the death row inmates. You call one "stupid". It's more than stupid, it's heinous. Flesh out the victims and the demands of justice become more clear. Which takes me back to Prager, and his observations on the Left's failings to identify and confront evil.

4. Evil in this article is instead represented by Bush and Perry. That's an injustice itself.

5. Abortion, of course. I'll save that for a separate comment.

More to come after I read all the comments.

Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice.

It always strikes me that that phrase stops short. "Freedom of choice" of what? Finish the thought. Freedom to choose to take a life.

By that logic, I believe in the freedom of choice of representatives of residents of states to enact a death penalty.

There is no contradiction between being for capital punishment and being against abortion.

Capital punishment is taking the life of a guilty person.

Abortion is taking the life of an innocent person.

The former is just and the latter is unjust.

Wow. There are a lot of interesting and compelling comments on this thread. Especially from those who have experienced the murder of a loved one.

Having said that...

it is not hypocritical to support abortion and not the death penalty because foetuses' are not sentient beings...

I may have to bail on this thread before the callousness of the pro-choicers and the Darwinists ("we're just animals") makes me throw up.

"Nobody has the right to take another life" outside an abortion mill.

Damn, Roger.

And once again why I could never be a Republican.

"Republicans Cheer Texas Death Penalty at GOP Debate"
youtube.com/watch?v=ocKFSLsZnUo

Very well put. I think the main problem with our society always lies on one thing.... Education.

Every crime is the responsibility of the citizens of that nation, state, city, borough, county. I personally do not believe in free will (another subject altogether) and even though we must answer for our actions, we should always consider the root of the crimes that occur to try and curb them.

There is a very interesting article on The New Yorker titled "No Remorse" (does not deal with death penalty, but with a life-sentence to a 14yr old...) Sam Harris also talks a lot about free will and has many interesting thoughts on the subject.

If we do not have free will... who is responsible for the crimes? I believe we as a society are responsible.

I share your belief that these executions should not be happening in Texas or anywhere else.

However, the cold reality is that we are then forced to feed and provide for these criminals indefinately through what is (persumably) a life sentence. But then, what is money really when weighed against a human life?

How is this any different that the President's healthcare reform (which as I recall you support)? It will result in people (in particular the elderly or terminally ill) being denied care due to statistics, the bottom line, and (god help me) Sarah Palin's "death panels".

If nobody has a right to take another life...how is this any different? It is a state sanctioned death sentence just the same.

Vicious killers are wild animals, with those who kill for pecuniary gain being the worst. Since we cannot have wild animals roaming the streets (because, how can be have a progressive society if people are not safe to leave their homes?), the best way to handle them is to either (1) consign them to a cage until they die natural deaths, or (2) euthanize them. There is a risk that a killer will not stay in prison until it dies, so it's preferable to put them down. Some of these animals are too dangerous to even be allowed to walk freely among the general prison population.

The death penalty is not about deterrence, and I doubt it ever was. It is about the state avenging itself upon the killer. I don't have a problem with that in general.

Is there a risk that a factually innocent person will be executed? Yes, but we have to ask ourselves how much risk we can tolerate. We should resolve this with ensuring all capital defendants are afforded qualified capital defense counsel and separate, qualified mitigation counsel, together with the investigatory resources necessary to mount a defense - that is, the capital defendant should be afforded the same resources the state proides its own attorneys. We need to be as sure as we can be that the defendant is guilty. Absent that, no one should be executed.

For perusal and contemplation:

A Cry In The Dark

BY ROGER EBERT / November 11, 1988

Cast & CreditsLindy Chamberlain: Meryl Streep
Michael Chamberlain: Sam Neill
Muirhead :Charles "Bud" Tingwell
Barker: Bruce Myles
Sturgess: Dennis Miller
Phillips: Neil Fitzpatrick

Warner Bros. Presents A Cannon Production Directed By Fred Schepisi And Produced By Verity Lambert. Screenplay By Robert Caswell And Schepisi, Based On The Book Evil Angels By John Bryson. Photographed By Ian Baker. Music By Bruce Smeaton. Running Time: 120 Minutes. Classified PG-13.

I had an argument about capital punishment with some friends over the weekend, and I wish I could have taken them to see this movie. I was against the death penalty in principle, of course, but what really bothered me was the thought that a convicted person could be put to death on the basis of circumstantial evidence. There's just too much that can go wrong - as "A Cry in the Dark" and another current movie, "The Thin Blue Line," both demonstrate.

"A Cry in the Dark" takes place in Australia and is based on the famous recent case of Lindy Chamberlain, the mother who said her baby daughter had been dragged away and killed by one of the wild Australian dogs named dingos. No one else saw the tragic event take place, and the initial rush of sympathy for the parents was replaced, after a few weeks, by a malicious whispering campaign.

Did Lindy in fact murder her own baby and only blame the dogs? The evidence against her began to pile up. A mark on a cloth looked like her bloody handprint. Blood was found sprayed all over the underside of the dash board in the family car. A dingo was not big enough to carry away a human baby. Worst of all, Lindy did not seem sufficiently distraught by the death. Charges were eventually filed against her, she was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, and she served 3 1/2 years behind bars - even giving birth to another child there - before she was released. An appeals court quashed her conviction on on Sept. 15, 1988, declaring it a miscarriage of justice. You may have read about that in the papers or seen it covered on "60 Minutes." Why was Lindy able to maintain her composure - even an icy facade - in press interviews and on TV? Why didn't she weep for her baby? There is the implication in "A Cry in the Dark" that if Lindy had behaved "correctly" in the media, the investigation that led to her conviction might never have been carried forward. In trying to help us understand Lindy, Meryl Streep, the star of the movie, faces the formidable challenge of making an unlikable woman seem sympathetic. It appears that Lindy was not naturally prone to outbursts of emotion in public. She kept things bottled up. After she was charged with murdering her child, anger took over, filling her with a deep bitterness that was evident in her face and voice.

And there was another matter, the matter of the religious beliefs of Lindy and Michael Chamberlain (solidly played by Sam Neill).

They are Seventh-day Adventists in a country where that religion is in a small minority and widely misunderstood. While they spoke of reconciling themselves to the will of God, the public maliciously whispered that she had sacrificed her child in some sort of cult ceremony - an event that is unthinkable in terms of the Adventist religion. Whatever she did, Lindy and her husband were religious, emotional and social outsiders, and the press and the law were after them like a pack of dingos.

"A Cry in the Dark" takes the time to marshall the case against Lindy , and the time to destroy it. The blood under the dash board proved to be rust-proofing. Dingos could indeed kill and carry a human baby. And additional physical evidence (the coat the baby was wearing when she disppeared) turned up years later and corroborated Lindy's story.

Fred Schepisi, who directed and co-wrote the film, has used Australian public opinion as a sort of Greek chorus in the background.

He cuts away to tennis games, saloons, filling stations and dinner parties, where the Australian public tries Lindy and finds her guilty (one hostess finally bans the subject at her dinner table, declaring that the case is not going to ruin another one of her parties).

Schepisi is successful in indicting the court of public opinion, and his methodical (but absorbing) examination of the evidence helps us understand the state's circumstantial case.

In the lead role, Streep is given a thankless assignment: to show us a woman who deliberately refused to allow insights into herself. She succeeds, and so, of course, there are times when we feel frustrated because we do not know what Lindy is thinking or feeling. We begin to dislike the character, and then we know how the Australian public felt. Streep's performance is risky, and masterful.

The final point of the movie, I suppose, is that when passions run high enough a court is likely to decide almost anything about anybody - especially an unlikable, unpopular member of a minority group who is charged with an unspeakable crime. When you combine that possibility with the uncertainty of circumstantial evidence and the human lust for revenge, you get a situation in which the death penalty can result in irrevocable tragedy. Lindy Chamberlain spent 3 1/2 years in prison for a murder she did not commit, but at least she did not die for it.

Herzog remains one of my favorite living filmmakers, but I have to wonder why he's so insistent that this is "not an anti capital punishment film"... It does often seem that matters of humane concern are beneath Herzog, that he regards all human dreams and desires as dangerous folly - and also one that he is not guilty of, apparently. I sensed genuine contempt in ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD... which is fine, I have a lot of genuine contempt myself. Anyway: I love the man's work... but where do you think this remove stems from? Perhaps, with this film, an attempt to not alienate any pro capital punishment people?

So all you people going on about the economics, I once read (and wish I could remember where) that executions actually cost more, once you factor in things like appeals and things. The death penalty requires a higher level of due diligence than life without the possibility of parole, and that means costs. If this is true, which I'm not certain it is, do you still support the death penalty?

Even though I disapprove of the death penalty, there's still a little piece of my mind that can approve of the fact that, say, Ted Bundy is not walking the Earth anymore. Not that he ever would have gotten out, so anyone making that argument needs to understand "without the possibility of parole." But I do think Ted was a special case, in that he'd escaped from custody and continued killing because he couldn't stop himself, and I don't think it's reasonable to compare him to most of the people on Death Row. Most of them aren't serial killers. The examples are always people like Ted--or Charles Starkweather, if we're looking at spree killers--but most people on Death Row didn't do anything nearly so flashy. Mostly, they're sordid, petty crimes.

Yes, the violent crime statistics under Governors Perry and Bush have gone down, but that's a specious argument, given that violent crime statistics have gone down nationwide during that same time. That includes in states without the death penalty. What is causing the drop in violent crime? Probably a lot of things, but almost certainly not the death penalty.

And to say, "Of course more minorities are on Death Row; minorities commit more crimes" is to ignore that there's still a question left to answer. Why are more minorities committing more crimes? Does the death penalty change that? Or should we be putting more money into education, drug treatment, and other societal cures to these problems? Should we try to prevent the problems before they start?

Up above, one of the commenters stated that "95% of the anti-death penalty posters have had no direct experience with violent death".
That's probably true.
Just as it's also probably true that an equal percentage of pro-death penalty posters also have had no direct experience with violent death.

Some years back, I read a short story, "The Question", by Stanley Ellin.
It's a monologue, the words of a man who is his state's "electrocutioner", who performs the executions.
He tells of how he came to get the job, how it fostered an interest in him on the subject of the death penalty in general - and how he's had to keep it a secret from his friends and family for years, because he fears their reaction.
Eventually, he tells his grown son, in the hope that he can perhaps pass the job on when he retires or passes on. He really doesn't expect enthusiasm, but he also doesn't expect his son to ask "the question" of the story's title - which leads to one of the most stunning final lines of any story I've ever read.

Of course, it's fiction, written with the detachment of someone who perhaps doesn't have that "direct experience" mentioned above.I have no idea if "The Question" is in print anywhere, but it's worth seeking out by anyone on either side who's interested. (I'd lend you my copy if I thought I had a chance of getting the book back.)

Now that lethal injection has become the preferred form of execution in most states, a lot of the hard feelings one way or the other seem to have been banked, simply it's the least dramatic form of execution there is.
All anyone can see is somebody strapped to a table and put to sleep - no choking, no strangling, no convulsions, no death rattle, nothing to really rouse a crowd the way public hangings did back in the day.
Of course, movies and TV couldn't really show anything; they always shot around the actual event - crowd reaction, gasps, the very occasional quick shot of the taut rope swinging, etc.
That's the idea most of us have of the death penalty, cleaned up and discreet.
How many of you - on either side of this argument - have ever actually seen an execution?
I haven't.
I don't believe Roger has (unless he happened to cover one early in his newspaper career that he's never written about).
And the rest of you?
If it's less than 95% of you that haven't, I'd be truly surprised.

Something to think about ...

Saying its OK to kill a murderer is letting the murderer drag our entire society down to their level.

Lots of Americans say its OK to kill a murderer. Bet if you asked most murderers in prison if they felt it was OK to kill their victim most could probably rationalize it too.

While it's true innocent people getting executed is terrible, my opposition to the death penalty goes beyond that, I oppose it because murder is wrong. I would not have executed Adolph Hitler but let him spend the rest of his life in jail.

This is a link to a great little essay written by William Thackery about the impact of seeing a public hanging and the spectacle surrounding it in 1840. It really says it all:

http://www.exclassics.com/newgate/courv.htm

Hello Roger,

Here is a bit more maths, on topic this time:

From the table in the post there are about 50 executions per year in the US

An inmate costs 30 000 $ per year (quick Google search) to house and feed

So 50 x 30 000 $ = 1 500 000 $
This is the amount of money a year capital punishment saves.

The US has a population of about 300 000 000 (300 million)

1 500 000$ divided by 300 000 000 is 0,005, or, in other terms, half a cent.
That would then be about 2 cents for a family of four.

So for 2 cents a year, Americans could give up the death penalty, and from time to time save an innocent person. Seems reasonably inexpensive to me. After all, don’t Americans spend almost 200$ per year per family on pet food?

Best regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park, Qc

I would add to my previous post, I do NOT think it is 'murder' to kill someone who is of IMMEDIATE danger to you or others, I am also not a 'pacifist', but people who have been caught and imprisoned are essentially at the mercy of the state and I believe killing people in such conditions is murder.

I am for the death penalty. I am also pro-choice. It would not be intellectually honest to be pro-life and against the death penalty, or vice versa. Guys like Ebert need to decide where they are phillosophically at, can't have your cake and eat it to.-W

"In some cases, more people die, because if one victim is unintentionally killed in the process of a crime, more are likely to be killed to eliminate possible witnesses."

Care to elaborate on this? It sounds like you believe the police kill people to shut them up...

Ebert: I think it's that the murderer often kills other witnesses who could testify against him. That happened in the case the Herzog doc is about.

What are we to do then with those that kill innocent people? Do we keep them in prison for life? How many prisons do we build? Are we willing to take the risk and let loose criminals among the sheep and put their lives at risk? Apparently we are. Yes, there are many problems with our criminal system - lack of proper DNA evidence, coersion of false confessions, profiling etc - but in our society we have to weigh averages. How many innocent people are put to death vs how many innocent people are killed by criminals? We all wish wrongful conviction would not exist, and that only guilty people would be incarcerated. However one thing that the death penalty does address, if it is applied to the guilty criminal, is that no innocent child or person will ever be murdered or killed by a repeat offender. Where is the outrage when we hear someone has been killed again by a repeat offender? We apparently are willing to take that risk. In that case, unfortunately, to save innocent people, our society needs to take the risk of people being wrongfully convicted and perhaps put to death.

Just a quick note: Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi (!) has pardoned 20 convicted murderers in the past two years. Full pardon. Release. Done.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/11/justice/mississippi-pardons/?hpt=hp_bn1

Linked is a story of one who killed his wife in a beauty shop (as she held her baby in her arms), shot others in the head, was witnessed by several other patrons, was tried and convicted, and is now out and walking around.

The witnesses who testified against him are, for obvious reasons, terrified.

I suspect the death penalty might have served as a deterrent - if he or any of the other 19 go on to kill someone again. Not to worry, probably: many of them were serving as "trustees" at the Governor's Mansion, so they certainly had "hard duty" as a result of their murderous behavior.

Let us also consider the case, if we're looking at the sensational, of Leslie Van Houten. She was, long ago, given the death penalty for her participation in a series of horrific murders. Innocents were killed--you "life begins at conception" types will count one more than I will in the final death toll of those two nights' killings. And then the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for a time, and Leslie and the others had their sentences commuted to life in prison. Not even without the possibility of parole, though I think in practical terms her notoriety has denied her the possibility of parole.

In prison, Leslie Van Houten has redeemed herself. No, she can't bring back those whose murders she was involved in. But she has gotten all the education and counseling the State of California will permit her, and she has used that education to educate others in the hopes that they will be able to lead productive lives when they are released from prison. Perhaps she never would have become the person she has without the experiences she's had; perhaps a Leslie Van Houten never involved in those murders would have been a worthless drain on society. (Though certainly that doesn't justify the murders; one of the victims had been doing similar work herself.) We can't know; we can never know. All we know is what she has accomplished because we didn't kill her.

After all, isn't one of the goals of our prison system rehabilitation? No, some people will never be rehabilitated, including at least one of her codefendants. But we as a society are supposed to be better than that, and I think we can allow ourselves the hope that at least some of the condemned can be saved instead and, by doing so, help to save others who might otherwise themselves end up condemned.

Looks like the opinions are running neck and neck.

Houston, Texas, had the most godawful violent stories on the nightly TV news while I lived there. I'd see that in the construction business now and then -- when they weren't committing major thieveries. On a lesser note, I gently hounded one of my bosses for nearly two years before I got my pay.

Dave had been robbed of the whole shebang for a job where a team of us worked 18 hour shifts, even a twenty four hour shift, hanging sheetrock to get the job done on schedule.

Dave was more than a good guy. He took $7/hr jobs himself to eventually pay everybody their wages.

One day Dave dropped by with his folks. They were a jolly pair of old-timey crackers from East Texas, which I learned while there, was a sort of embarrassment to sophisticated Houstonians at large.

Wellsir, one day Mrs. Dave got so darn mad at Mr. Dave she took a pistol out of her dresser drawer and shot him square in the belly. Ooooh, she was mad at him! But the moment he buckled she felt so bad. Oooh, she didn't mean to do that!

Mr. Dave didn't press no charges. He got out of the hospital almost as good as gold, and the incident only made them closer. They sat in my living room having a big laugh over the whole thing, decades later now. I guess the moral of the story is, not everybody who shoots her husband in the belly would be improved by jail.

That Mississippi governor sounds crazy, pardoning a couple dozen murderers like that, some of whom go out and kill some more. Lately, though, most politicians sound crazy.

You can't help but be crazy, though, imagining that there's an assembly-line answer to the question. That's a crazy thing to imagine. I know from experience that if you delve in a little too deep with people who have these assembly-line answers, they'll go crazy on you.

I don't care whether it's "execution," "killing" or "murder," whatever you call it, somebody gets made dead and the problem isn't solved. Not for crimes, Holy Wars Against People You Don't Even Know, abortion, whatever. They're dead and they don't need your niggling with words and sanctimonious bickering. The problem isn't solved.

So I'm agin' it. Nor do I care that ceremonial execution makes some people think they're happy now. I don't believe them. I've at least been that close-up. A psycho serial killer, one will find, is never satisfied. Killing doesn't actually feel like anything, most of them say, in True Crime stories I've read. I say it's the same with the Peanut Gallery hooting for their executions. They don't really feel anything either. Both are bothered by the phenomenon of somebody else's death not feeling like anything. Shouldn't it feel like something?

They'll need more and more, whether stalking little kids or uttering triumphantly at something they don't know about and just "believe" at the breakfast table, smugging to the wife, perhaps.

And, I say all this is "magical thinking." I looked things up about "magical thinking" to sound smart about, but the writers of those articles seemed crazy themselves.

In short, "magical thinking" doesn't do anything either. Therefore one keeps thinking it over and over and over again to convince himself that it does. But she don't. Some people never seem to get tired of it. That's kind of magical, I guess.

BREAKING NEWS: SAINT NEWT TURNS ATTACK DOG

(Nobody has the right to take another life)

Animal activist Ginrich accuses Romney of Abu Graib style torture and abuse of family Irish setter. Newt alleges Mitt's mutt was repeatedly struck, starved, and strapped to the top of family car on long trips, leading to the poor creature's premature demise.

I have a problem with death sentences in theory because I don't trust most idiots on jury (the uneducated masses) as well as some of the officials in the courts (who have extreme personal biases) to always make the right decision of guilt and innocence.

But if someone has murdered another, and there is no dispute... i.e., hypothetically it's on video and we can see it happen and there are no tricks... I have no issue with death penalty.

Not because it's a deterrent. Not because it might make some people feel better, though if it does, then that's good.

But only because it's right. If one takes another's life, that person has no right to live him/herself. It's very simple.

The statement that "If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases" is incorrect.

Certainly it's fine if it's in self-defense, no? If someone's going to kill you, but you kill the person in defense, is that wrong? If not, then it isn't wrong in all cases.

I would also submit it's not wrong if someone kills someone else... for that person to have happen to him/her exactly what he/she did for another. I would argue that's only right.

I'm not smart enough to put in my half-cent on the death penalty. My question is: why are there so many evil people in Texas? Or, perhaps I should phrase it: why do people choose to commit so many crimes in Texas? And are there so many people on death row because the police do a great job of apprehending criminals (and the prosecutors have essentially 100% rates of conviction, etc.) or does it not matter--everyone in Texas is evil so it doesn't matter who they arrest and put on trial? Or are all the defense lawyers incompetent or drunkards? Or is it that convictions for petty crimes lead to the death penalty? (No, it couldn't be that, right?) Or is the justice system so corrupt the prosecutors bribe the defense lawyers to help convict their clients? Or etc. etc. etc.? I truly do not understand what is going on there. Why is Texas so different? Would someone please explain?

I wrote what I thought was a pretty good response, but it didn't get posted and I can't remember any of it. Internet.

How would I feel if my small child was raped and murdered? I would feel like wreaking havoc on the perpetrator ("going medieval on his ass" just about covers it) and I probably would. But having done it, I wouldn't expect the State to turn its back and just let me go.

If life imprisonment without possibility of parole works, and makes it impossible for the perp to repeat, then let's face it: the death penalty is about vengeance, the the entirely human and understandable urge to damage evil.

I oppose the death penalty not because it's always wrong to kill (very sticky ground there, as this discussion shows). I oppose it because it WILL kill the innocent, and because it WILL leak from the the cases of obvious evil to far more numerous, far more debatable crimes (killing a firefighter?!?), but mostly because I don't believe the state should be an instrument of vengeance.

Scott Turow served on Gov. Ryan's commission on the death penalty, and his book Ultimate Punishment is the last word on the subject, IMHO. Calm, reflective, and powerful, it steps the reader through his process going from supporter to opponent. I think it's the responsibility of anyone supporting the death penalty to address those points.

"If the taking of life is wrong, then it is wrong in all cases."

And on what basis is taking a life always wrong? You've simply declared it.

I mean, imprisoning somebody is generally against the law and morality too. It's something we allow only in the context of law enforcement.

Same with killing a person.

My opinion, is that the death penalty is a perfectly legitimate expression of justice, and one that's served the human race for thousands of years.

It isn't simply ejected from the category of justice simply because some of the mainstream left-wing declare it is.

On the other hand, the death penalty offers little over life imprisonment, and carries the risk of irreversible miscarriage of justice.

On that basis, I'm against it.

But really, you are quite a mushy sort of liberal, Ebert. Not in a good way.

This is one of the better, more reasoned discussions involving the State's (possessive, singular sense) role in life and death issues.

Everybody (me included) seem to cheer when Obama killed those pirates and put the hit on bin Laden.

Those decisions weren't that much different from the state-sponsored executions occurring in our own country.

I don't see the easy all-or-nothing parallels others do (on both sides) when it comes to abortion and our death penalty.

I think Randy makes a very good point about politicians being cowardly for not following through with their states' laws.

I'd like an answer from Randy and other hard-core pro-death penalty advocates: What about the execution of innocent people? Cameron Todd Willingham is probably in this category. Our country probably executed someone innocent of the crime. This is enough for me to drop the death penalty all-together. What say you?

"Perry has commuted the death sentences of two prisoners, both also on the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. It would appear that if the board rejected your appeal, your chance of having the sentence overturned by Bush or Perry was zero."

In Texas, the governor does not have the unilateral legal power to grant pardons or commutations. If the Board of Pardons and Paroles recommends clemency, the govenor can accept or reject their recommendation. If the Board does not recommend clemency, the govenor cannot override their denial and the sentence remains.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Texas#Board_of_Pardons_and_Paroles

Yesterday (the 12th), I made several false starts in coming up with a reasoned reply to Randy Masters's latest anthology of bromides. Each time, I found myself buliding up a head of steam, becoming as simplistic and unyielding as Randy always is.
But this subject is not a simple one.

Taking Randy's "points" in order:
- Calling Governor Ryan's commutation a "cowardly act" is the characterization of a hardline ideologue. To take the stance that he did in the face of his own party's stated positions is hardly "cowardly"; quite the opposite. When his scandal broke, this factor most likely cost Ryan the in-party support he would have needed to withstand investigation. Defying one's own party takes a certain amount of guts. Whatever else George Ryan might have done as Governor (or Secretary of State, which is where his scandal occurred), in this case he showed something like actual courage.
Randy's tirade reminded me of the movie Seven Days In May.
In the scene where President Lyman confronts General Scott in the Oval Office, Scott tells Lyman - in so many words (remarkably similar to Randy's) - that since the polls show that most Americans don't support Lyman's proposed nuclear treaty, that Lyman should simply resign and turn the Presidency over to someone who reflects that opinion - someone like himself.
(Roger - Great Movie essay here *hint*hint*hint*)
Also, Randy's blind reference to Sarah Palin's bailing on the governorship of Alaska is as wrong-headed as it ever was.
When you feel you're in the right, you stay and fight it out no matter what the opposition throws at you. That's courage.To cut and run as Palin did - not honorable in the least.

- The pain of the guards: Randy's in his "blamer" mode here.
"The Liberals are to blame for everything!"
Funny - I didn't realize that Due Process Of Law was specifically Liberal.
Due Process is what causes those delays that Randy is whining about.
This is one of the selling points that attracts people from other lands and cultures to try the USA, particularly if they come from nations with repressive, dictatorial regimes.
The idea that our government cannot just arbitralily round you up and gun you down if you're accused of something -
-that your accuser must prove that you are guilty of the crime -
- that the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, and not just the say-so of the press-tv-cabloids -
- all these things are what make the USA the best possible place to live and be free.
But not for Randy the Ideologue.
The safeguards - which derive from that Constitution that the farRight gives so much lip service to - are mere timewasters, existing only to help evildoers do more evil. Ignore them. Just scrape 'em off.
And if somebody gets nailed who turns out not to have done it - well, you can't win 'em all, right?

- and that brings us to "skewed perspective".
Who in this argument is doing the skewing?
I'd say Randy is the skewer here. He's working from the assumption that all DeathRow inmates must be guilty, or else why would they be there.
This whole thread began with Roger's recounting of a case where three men who'd spent years on Death Row were exonerated of the crimes the were accused of, thanks in part to advances in forensics not available until the present day.
But Randy elected to "scan" that part. Anything that gets in the way of his laminated ideology, Randy just ignores. I guess it just wasn't "substantive" enough.
I suppose A Cry In The Dark wouldn't have any effect on Randy's opinion.
Nor would that TV movie from a few years back about the McMartin pre-school affair.
Nor would any treatment of the Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle case, where a "rape and murder" turned out not to be, despite the best efforts of San Francisco's public prosecutors and newspapers to make it so.
Should I even mention the Dr. Sam Sheppard case (see Arbuckle above, substituting Cleveland for San Francisco)?
Given the current cabloid climate, I wonder if a truly fair trial is even possible these days. How do you find a jury pool that hasn't been poisoned by the Nancy Grace clones that are proliferating all over cableTV?
Or shall we simply eliminate Due Process and put the whole to a cabloid phone-in vote?
You know, just like American Idol?

Okay, Randy - answer those if you can.
Or if you dare.

-

Roger, has there ever been a (fictional) movie made wherein a self-confessed murder on death row is used to promote an anti- death penalty argument? I can't recall one, in such movies the inmate is invariably an innocent victim of fate. I guess the former argument is much harder to make.

I can completely understand both sides of the argument when it comes to the death penalty. A person you love is murdered so you obviously want the most horrible punishment for the killer. And what is worse than death? Does someone who, say, dismembers a child deserve to live even another day? Probably not. But at the same time, an execution involves people who have nothing to do with the case, like the man in the above video. An execution often involves many people, again with no involvement, celebrating or protesting. Executions are often disgusting public spectacles. When someone dies, no matter how good or evil, it should be seen as saddening. Saddening that either someone innocent died, or someone made such a wicked life for themselves and ended up destroyed for it. Do I agree with the Death Penalty? Honestly, I don't know. But whether or not execution is or isn't wrong, the mob mentality behind it is.

Before the weekend kicks in, I ought to weigh in on those who dragged abortion into this discussion, even though it really doesn't belong.

Randy took the opportunity to resurrect his "25%" meme, which is something I answered once before, many threads ago.
As always, Randy oversimplifies: to him, there are only live births and abortions, with nothing in between.
As though miscarriages, stillbirths, and SIDS (aka crib death) didn't exist.
And as though the only reason any woman ever gets an abortion is for "convenience" - because they can't be bothered with a baby.
Has anyone ever done a detailed study of why individual women choose to abort rather than carry to term? I wonder just how many different reasons there are, and how much thought goes into making the final decision.
Not that Randy would care about such a study - if it didn't reflect his own set-in-stone agenda, he'd likely dismiss it as "skewed" or "biased" or whatever.
There's a word for attitudes like Randy Masters's.
Callous.

And you have a nice weekend too.

If you believe "Nobody has the right to take another life.", then do you believe police should be allowed to use guns? If not, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to carry them while on duty. Off-duty they could, of course, carry them like any other law-abiding American citizen.

And should our military have deadly weapons? For example, when Japanese aircraft were bombing Pearl Harbor, did no one have the right to try to shoot them down, and take the pilot's life?

The Governor of Texas has no role in the prosecution and sentencing of criminals. In fact, he also has a limited role in the clemency process, that power residing primarily with the Board of Pardons. The only unilateral clemency power he has is a single 30 day reprieve.

Just another cheap shot at Bush without factual basis, and ignoring democratic governors such as Ann Richards and Mark White. Stick to film criticism. When you write about politics, it is mean spirited and lacks merit.

I am also against death penalty. Interesting to see this culture, so deeply rooted in north Americans minds, so used to it.

In my country I know a lot of people who would like a death penalty. The main practical problems is our judiciary system, which would condemn only the poor and, usually, the blacks.

When talking about death penalty, people like too much the spectacle, or, as I like to call, the "easy cases". They think in cases with knives, guns, rapes and "serial killers" (which also interest me the fact that your nation is so good to produce them). But if a politician deliberately make a region poor for personal gain (which increases the rate crimes in that place), he should not also receive capital punishment? In some countries, like China, they do, and we from the Western world criticize then for that.

What about the atomic bomb, which killed thousands of innocent people? What was the punishment of your president at the time? How he is portrayed in the history books?

Ps.: just a quick note about self-defense (also can be used for the Bin Laden case): why shoot to kill? I understand that some times people don't know how to shoot, but the cases described in the comments seem that like it was no choice. Why not shoot in the leg, or hands? And then, if after this there is still a menace, you can hit it with something, if possible. Instead of simply labeled it as "evil people", why not understand them, in order to avoid future examples?

I see a more than insignificant number of commentators who are willing accept some dead innocents for the righteous duty to exact murderous revenge on the "bad guy".

They seem to acknowledge the fact that some innocent people may have been executed by the State, but are perfectly OK with that. Again, all in the name of revenge.

Where does this anger come from? Why are they so sick with hatred? And why does it always seem that the same people who distrust the government the most will see the government as utterly infallible when it comes to the killing of it's own citizens?

This comment thread is one of the more distressing Roger has hosted.

The death penalty is one of the most absurd atrocities we've ever allowed to be policy in America. It simply defies logic that we could believe we have the Right to take another person's life. Even in war and in self-defense, it is a most unfortunate thing that we would have to extinguish another human life, though most times for very convincing reasons (that we should not die instead of the other person). It is tragically cartoonistic of our people that we would have a very lengthy, complex, thought-provoking, and emotionally exhaustive legal process that leads, after sometimes a decade or two or three, to the prisoner's death and that cruel and illogical sentence does not every single time buckle under the pressure of common sense and decency and our desperate love for life itself. It is because precious life has been extinguished that we are at the point when extinguishing life again is to be considered and, by some, passionately advocated. What I find most curious is that people who are ardently against abortion often are the fiercest supporters of capital punishment. I do not expect everyone to agree with me on everything, but on this issue I most certainly do. You simply don't kill, you don't steal, you don't assault, you don't mislead, when you absolutely do not have to. You don't kill because you think someone deserves it; you kill because you do not want to die instead, and hope that you made the right decision. You don't steal for retribution, nor do you strike or spite or slander for the same reason. The death penalty is one of the clearest displays of human beings as being always in some stage of childhood.

I have always opposed the death penalty -- not because I feel that it's never appropriate, but because I don't trust any human being to be 100% correct in judging its appropriateness. One mistake is too many, when it comes to the death penalty, and we know from experience that not only is justice not always applied fairly to the guilty, but to the innocent as well.

If you believe that the death penalty should exist, then you also have to either believe that killing the occasional innocent person is a small enough price to pay for ridding the world of a criminal, or you have to believe in the infallibility of the justice system. I can't see any other way to justify it. And both options are simply ludicrous.

Ebert: I would not personally support an abortion. That is my choice. I believe in freedom of choice.

Roger, you're a good man and I credit you with honorable intentions in holding this misguided position. I do. I believe that you believe it to be a humane position.

I believe it's a good-sounding but flawed position, much like wanting abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" - which is poppycock. Safe, we agree on. Legal, we don't. But rare? If abortion is not a morally questionable procedure - akin to an appendectomy - why do we care how rare it is? Do you care how many appendctomies are performed. If it is morally questionable, why allow it?

So, I have to ask: why do you not personally support an abortion? Because you recognize it to be the taking of a life. Why support the freedom to take a life? You feel perfectly rational in opposing the taking of a life in the death penalty, but proscribed by political correctness to not make that prohibition in the case of abortion. In the death penalty you have the possibility of taking an innocent life, whereas in each and every case of abortion there is the taking of an innocent life. Have the courage of your convictions there too. Speak against the freedom to take a life in abortion.

I'll make you a compromise on choice:

I'll give up the voter's right to choose in all 50 states to have the death penalty to avoid the possibility of taking one innocent life.

You give up the advocacy for the freedom to choose something you don't support - the taking of an innocent life in each and every abortion.

Compromise. We could all make that compromise nationally. Solved.

The only thing you can be 100% sure of is that a Death Penalty execution is murder. It's premeditated.

It's a ridiculous world where the punishment for taking a life, is taking a life.

I just saw the HBO documentary "Paradise Lost 3" and I came away with one very disturbing thought.

Since the West Memphis 3 became a Cause Célèbre, I had the same sense as every time I've watched Twelve Angry Men . . . "you do realize, when it's all said and done, that you probably let the guilty go free, right?"

The Prosecutor who has aged 16 years since the events and made a very clear statement that the viewers of the documentary are limited in their awareness of the elements that were not aired as part of the documentary; that the bias of the documentarians (which was clear from the start) tainted the view presented.

Near the end of the original defense, the attorneys had tried to claim it was a black homeless man who was found in a Burger King. This is documented in the book on the subject.

And clearly in Paradise Lost 1 & 2, the alternative suspect is John Mark Byers. In Paradise Lost 3, it's Terry Hobbs. But the FBI stated that this was an act of a sadistic killer, one who needed to humiliate the children . . . why then has not a single similar act occurred since these three have been behind bars?

But you need to offer a viable alternative if you're going to raise doubt . . . Alan Dershowitz said that about Claus Von Bulow (another "innocent" man).

After 9/11 when 1,000 suspects were detained, and no other similar attacks occurred, you could make the argument that they detained the right 1,000 people.

And you can say they detained the right three, here.

Our society should aspire to higher standards? Spoken like a naive rich man, Roger. Obama was two weeks into office when a bombing raid he ordered murdered children. He's neither the first nor the last president to do this but I ask you: how many newspapers covered this at any length? Who greives for those kids and their families? We clap for men like them (presidents) who order these things and feel good about themselves and then you actually say society can aspire to higher standards and keep a straight face?

As far as the melodrama of Fred Allen, it's in a movie and it's caught attention because it's rare, Roger. Most of the men who work around death row murderers know the kind of people they are from having been exposed to them and in your words "light a cigar to their deaths and sleep a bit easier".

I mentioned the Hitler biography earlier and it's funny to me that Randy Masters is poorly attempting the patronization that Hitler learned he had to fake in order to get people to follow him.

See, Hitler used to have debates with his peers and every single time he would scream at them and name-call etc. and he noticed that after every one of these debates that it did not get them to follow him.

So what Hitler did was, instead of screaming at them and name-calling, he tried to make them feel important.

This is what Randy is poorly attempting to do; he is just pretending to make you feel important just so you'll follow him, just as Hitler did.

Some examples of his poor attempts at trying to make people feel important:

---I understand the pain of the guard who made that overly-simplistic statement.

---You make an interesting and unique argument there, I grant you. I will consider it.

One paragraph later, apparently, was all the considering he needed...to put words in Michel's mouth, when he said:

---So, how many of the 52 million dead since 1973 do you want to credit with having been changed for other children? All of them?

Michel did not "credit" the babies; he just said that his "feeling" (his words) was that outlawing abortion might not mean these women will have more babies as Randy said they would with the whole playground scenario, even though he contradicts himself when he says to Roger later that the quantity doesn't matter, quoting him, "why do we care how rare it is? Do you care how many appendectomies are performed. If it is morally questionable, why allow it?". Yes, why care indeed. He apparently cared about the quantity when he came up with that magical direct-proportion math where for every abortion that gets administered another baby magically appears (another contradiction) because of course, he would have you believe, the killing of one fetus has everything to do with a totally different baby that gets made, but yet later on with Roger, suddenly numbers don't matter.

More examples from Randy of poor attempts of making people feel important

---Roger, you're a good man and I credit you with honorable intentions in holding this misguided position.

---I believe that you believe it to be a humane position.

Randy,

aborting other people's importance does not magically give birth to yours, just as aborting babies does not magically make another one appear, which, again, contradicts yourself, because abortions/births are not a zero-sum game where to have one baby is to equally not have another one or vice-versa, because if they were, then having an abortion would be a good thing on the side of the equation where aborting one baby would be equal to having a different baby, since for every abortion another baby magically appears.

I mean, you keep bringing up numbers, yet say they don't matter.

As Kierkegaard said (who was a religious man), "one must not think ill of the paradox, for the paradox is the passion of thought, and the thinker without the paradox is like the lover without passion: a mediocre fellow."

The United States now has its own version of "taking another life" under the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law on December 31, 2011 by Obama. In addition to issuing a carte blanche to indefinitely detain citizens – the legislation reinstates torture. It compliments an earlier decision that Americans are legitimate military targets and may be assassinated.

Unlike death row inmates, no evidence is required for detention, or torture, and no right to an attorney, or a trial, for assassination.

“Enemy combatants” as defined by the DHS, are “Rightwing extremists,” and “fusion centers” around the country as returning veterans, Second Amendment activists, constitutionalists and Ron Paul supporters.

As usual in the liberal fantasy mind.. no mention of the actual crimes these black men committed. Not really. Just an attempt to purvey the odd notion that they were executed because they were black. Stick to being a bad movie critic and can the crap.

Ebert: Which three black men? Have I lost the thread?

I lived in Texas fir 12 years and watched George Bush put many inmates to death. One day the law will read death for parking tickets!

Durn burn it, my posts aren't showing up again. Two of 'em now. Had a good one for John in Denver, too.

Ebert: When this happens more than once, here's an idea: Keep a copy of the dang burn thang.

The government should not have permission to extinguish the lives of its citizens. Ever.

Right now, we may be in a somewhat acceptable situation where the government doesn't execute people on whims, but we've seen lots and lots of authority abused by the government. We should probably safeguard against that.

Hey Roger, I am a big fan and a follower of your posts. Up until a year ago, I had lived in Harris County, Texas. From birth until the age of 22, I mixed and mingled upon this "melting pot" of a county. If you have any questions or comments about the area (regarding the lifestyle/politics/etc) do let me know.

I believe "Nobody has the right to take another life"

I believe a person has the right to choose to take another life.

Not sure how those can be reconciled.

Randy Masters, I have a quick question for you.

Some posters here have opined that it is a worse punishment to be jailed for life, than it is to be killed.

To some extent I can understand that. When they're dead, it's over. They're no longer suffering. I'm sure that, being religious, you probably consider them damned and in hell; however, as an agnostic, I figure they're done - their identity, their self, their memories, everything that made them a person, ceased to exist and they are no longer in any kind of torment. And, even were I religious, their suffering in hell is something I don't see, feel or hear - so it's insubstantial.

Contrariwise, if they're alive and in prison, they will be cooped up in a cell every night, allowed out only to a small area, havw their freedom circumscribed, and have the joy of..."interacting"...with other prisoners.

So, which would you consider the greater punishment? You favour the death penalty, obviously. But do you consider that a greater penalty than spending 30, 40 or 50 years in prison, then dying? Or vice versa?

Oh, right, “the Law is the Law.” What’s the punishment for not living long enough to obey them all? As of January 1, so I read, United States Citizens have 40,000 new laws to obey. Then there’s the new EPA ruling that declares hay is a “pollutant,” so independent farmers, who struggle like crazy already, are going to have to put up expensive EPA-approved “containments” to keep hay from poisoning everything but the animals who’ve been subsisting on it for eons. My god, what was I thinking? I played in the hay as a child! I’m still covered with it every day! Somebody take my temperature! Call a doctor!

In other words, where “The Law” isn’t the endeavor of containment manufacturers to drum up business through their cousins in a Federal Bureaucracy, it’s a reflection of the mores, often literal-minded and backward, of those who also consider the government an extension of an all-powerful, vengeful God – who is supposed to reward them with jobs and money, methods and reasons depending.

It’s called “magical thinking” in current psychology, but the articles I looked up seemed so wishy-washy that they yet haven’t a good grasp on it. Basically, it’s an arbitrary idea repeated somewhat obsessively to oneself to reinforce a “truth” – which one fears isn’t true after all, so feels guilty about that. Some will pray or chant words for years and years that made sense only some thousand years ago, with no other result than to get irritable when somebody questions what results they’ve gotten so far, and could they have been achieved some other way? The same goes for armchair science buffs who don’t question the pop articles they read and find themselves irritable at those who do, calling them “ignorant” for being unconvinced by way of non-magical thinking.

Or, like the young lady in “Goodfellas” who says “I have to get my lucky hat. I don’t go anywhere without my lucky hat.” Or as one of the writers in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY said, he has to first touch the fuselage of any plane he’s about to take so it won’t crash. Or the writer who snorted that he’d prescribed his patient SIXTEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF PILLS, and she’s still complaining, if lucky to be alive. “Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn’t,” as the old Chief said to Little Big Man.

“Money is everything” is a similar magical meme; “Public perception is everything” another, and so is “The Law is the Law.”
One repeats “True” thoughts that may eventually do damage, if anything, because he feels guilty for one reason or another if he doesn’t. “It is difficult to convince a man of the truth whose livelihood depends on not knowing it.”

The death penalty doesn’t deter anything. It was outlawed in the various states 40 or 50 years ago because it didn’t deter anything. The absence of it, does, however, irritate the magical thinking of those who read a story, get angry, and demand a catharsis to this story – the real killing of the real person who may or may not have committed the crime.

Reality doesn’t matter; they don’t know the accused or anything about him or the circumstance; they read a story and decide it’s the magical truth and “good” must prevail over “evil.” Real humans aren’t magic. Killing them doesn’t kill “evil,” aka black magic. The magical thinker may feel an imaginary catharsis that “evil” has been plucked out, but the murders continue.

This applies on a staggering scale, as the U.S. government has blasted millions of innocent people to death this last decade in full magical righteousness and profit to boot. It takes the magical thinking of many Americans to allow this, although I can’t think of a more prominent magical thinker than was Christopher Hitchens, who kept encouraging these mass killings of people he didn’t know in squeeb after squeeb. Magical thinking is the most powerful deterrent to the reality of the senses there is.

However arguments for “The Law is The Law” are dressed up, it’s wise to remember that even naked savages dancing around a stranger they’re chopping up alive and burning at a stake also think they’re highly sophisticated and well-informed. They may be, as they don’t rely on an addiction to statistics for their arguments.

How about a corporation death penalty since they're people?

Quickie British TV Joke:
(For those among you who see the birth-rate vs. abortion business as a zero-sum game)

Two women meet in a park; one is pushing a stroller with twin babies.

1st Lady:: "You have lovely twins."
2nd Lady: "Thank you. They're our fourth set."
1st Lady: "Four sets of twins! So you have twins every time?"
2nd Lady: " No, most times we don't have anything at all."

I'm not quite sure how this post on capital punishment became a debate on abortion. But it has.

So Randy Masters and others, I post a hypothetical:

A fire rages in a hospital. You are a fireman, and you enter a room by yourself in which the smoke and flame are imminently lethal. In the room you find

1) a 150 pound man, age roughly 30, unconscious

2) a 150 pound woman, age roughly 60, unconscious

3) a 150 pound woman, age roughly 30, unconscious; you have information that she is pregnant (though she is not showing)

4) a 150 pound refrigerated unit labeled "500 frozen human embryos"

None of the living people can be awakened. You are only strong enough to carry out 150 pounds at a time. The fire is fierce, and every time you leave the room, the possibility is strong that you will not be able to re-enter. Indeed, your own life is in danger every second you remain in the room.

In what order would you carry them out? And at what point would you give up?

I can see here some latitude for rational disagreement. The 30 year-old man or the 60 year-old woman? In my experience, more women would save the man based on his relative youth and the number of years that would likely go un-lived due to his death. But more men would save the older woman based on traditional concepts of chivalry.

Almost everyone would save the pregnant woman first. I would, too. A pregnant woman is something more than another individual person, even when the woman is not visibly pregnant and the fetus is not viable outside the womb.

However, anyone who would carry out the refrigerated unit to save the 500 embryos is, to my and I dare say most people's way of thinking, a monster. Those embryos awaiting implantation do not yet have functioning brains. They have no consciousness, no feelings, no hopes or fears, as we understand those things. (I will leave aside the theological issue of whether they have souls yet, presuming souls exist. If the soul exists and an embryo has one, surely an innocent soul -- existing independent of the material plane as some kind of spiritual energy -- is incapable of suffering, unless you are suggesting that every time a woman miscarries, or even every time a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterine wall, which happens frequently, a soul suffers.)

Seriously, how would society react if a fireman left a pregnant woman to burn to death in order to save the embryos? I expect he would be fired, and probably sued. Remember, too, that most embryos created for the purpose of in vitro fertilization end up discarded anyway. Infertile couples usually want one, two, or three children, not a dozen, and no matter what someone might want to believe, there simply isn't much demand for other people's embryos, even among couples looking to have children.

Thus, it appears to me that no reasonable person can justify saving the embryos before the pregnant woman.

But can anyone advocate for the embryos before the other people? They may have families -- spouses, children -- and other people who depend on them. Beyond that, they have friends. An entire network of people will grieve their deaths. They also have their own thoughts, dreams, memories, affections, ambitions, hopes, ideals.

If that was your son or daughter or father or mother unconscious on the floor, how would you feel about the fireman who saved the refrigerator first while your loved one died? Conversely, even if some of those embryos were the product of your egg or sperm, could you in good conscience look at the family of the saved person and say, "My embryos deserved to live more than your" child, parent, or spouse?

I'll go further. If, against all odds, you as the fireman were able to save the three adults, would you -- at risk of your own life -- re-enter the burning room for the embryos?

Maybe you would. And to be honest, I'd respect that decision -- at least, I'd respect it more than if you risked your life to save an empty refrigerated unit just because it was a 150 pound piece of valuable medical equipment. Certainly, if any of the embryos were mine and my wife's, I would feel gratitude towards you.

But could I blame you if you decided it wasn't worth risking your life and potentially leaving your own children fatherless (or motherless) to preserve our chance of having our own children in the future? No, I don't think so.

So from this I draw some conclusions. Is an embryo equivalent to a person? No. It isn't even 1/500th of a person according to the way most people answer this question, since to them 500 embryos don't add up to a single living person with a functioning brain, experiences, memories, and so on. And frankly, no number of embryos would be enough to justify leaving any of those people to burn to death on the floor. No matter how many times evangelicals try to make a blastocyst the equivalent of a thinking human being, the argument doesn't work. They are arguing from sentiment, and sentiment that most of them would not act on if put into that situation. And if they did act on it, they would be rightly despised.

Again, though, the embryos aren't quite nothing. Exactly how much value to put on them is something we can discuss, but the frequently heard claims that they are people, that they have legal rights, that killing them is murder, and so on are non-starters. It's a bumper-sticker, not a defensible position.

I like the title of this article, "Nobody has the right to take a life". It is correct. No matter how or no matter how big the crime is no one is allowed to pass judgement by taking away one's life. As a christian, I am totally against this, death penalty.

Keith Carrizosa, Tom Dark: I was kind of joking. Calm down, fellas.

Keith, "Godwin's Law" is an old internet joke, as well as a gentle reminder to keep discussions civil. Alan Colmes once said that a conservative is someone without a sense of irony (I think I'm remembering the gist of his comment); is everyone losing a sense of humor?

I understand this conversation is a serious one, but I think a little levity (exclaiming, Tom, like Moses still frazzled from his mountaintop Close Encounter, "The Law is the Law!") is less damaging than spluttering rage: Keith: "What the hell are you talking about? What is this, some kind of snobbish attack etiquette?". Sorry, Keith, but we have different definitions of a "snob." You're right: your comparison was not between Randy and Adolph directly, but between their rhetorical strategies--directly. But a Hitler comparison is not, as you assert, the "best" one, if only because Hitler comparisons are generally considered the outer limit of comparisons: one can't go any lower (or higher, depending on your estimation of that Austrian paper hanger) than comparing someone--or their mode of discourse--to Hitler('s). I'm just saying.

And Tom, I agree with you about "magical thinking," even though its application might get a little lazy now and then: I'd like to tear down Hitchens' pro-Iran-decimation stance with something a little more substantial than lumping it in with rabbit's feet and crossed fingers.

And Randy, while I agree with only 10% or so of your ideas, I'd much rather put up with your Hitlerian "Hmm ... that's something to think about" dismissals than the tortured logic and syntax (although I'm one to talk, what with all these parenthetical interruptions--like this one here) that's thrown up like hasty barricades against the possibility that one might not be entirely correct.

By the way, whatever happened to the Death Penalty? Thumbs up or down? I say down because it's evil and evil is wrong. There. End of discussion. Next topic, Roger.

It was interesting to watch the wingnuts quickly run from the death penalty discussion, where they are at a distinct moral disadvantage, to the perceived higher ground of abortion. It's a worn-out old debater's trick.

As for the death penalty: to paraphrase the Apple corporation, "there's a commandment for that." (Funny how the wingnuts suddenly forget their Bibles when they can't find expedient passages.)

Hello Roger,

I re-checked my post on the cost for keeping people on death row and I see I made a mistake. Its 2 cents per year for 50 non executions, but this must be multiplied by 50 years on death row, which work out to 1 dollar per year, for 2500 people living out life sentences instead of exercising the death penalty.
You know what, that’s still cheap. So to recap, it would cost every American family a maximum of one dollar per year to abolish the death penalty.

Regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn park, Qc

I don’t see any reasoned solution for the “abortion” problem as it's posed. I do see it as impetus for another U.S. civil war, the way religious fanaticism provided the fiery fuel to aggravate a tax rebellion – which Lincoln instigated himself, after many campaign speeches ridiculing the possibility of civil war. The astonishing tax increase that Great President imposed on the Carolinas seems in hindsight like a ploy to have got them up in arms. Slavery was outlawed in every country but the U.S. without resort to war. Why here?

Modern warfare, the mass assembly-line slaughter of young men, concentration camps where prisoners were murdered by starvation and maltreatment, the wiping out of whole villages of peaceful people and everything they built, was invented by Yankees. “Slavery” was the purported reason; the clean, wholesome and sanitary excuse used by churchgoers to pray for each others’ deaths, then send their naïve overzealous sons off to righteous slaughter. (People need to stop “celebrating” history so magically and read it like grownups.)

Christian radio stations – yes Randy, there is “such a thing” as Christian radio stations, despite your odd claim to ignorance of them; Illinois is full of them – have invoked this magical chant for years now: millions of innocent American babies are “murdered” every year. “Liberals” and whomever else are “murderers” now. Anyone not protesting abortion is potentially “a murderer.”
How long before this magic chant reaches a massive peak?

People passing in traffic; people uninterested in “church” dogma; neighbors known and unknown; millions of “Godless” countrymen, all “murderers,” or accomplices to “murder,” so long as abortion exists.

“But they are murderers,” many protest, entranced in the magical repetition of a hysterical fixation. “Murderers deserve death,” goes the conclusion of armchair savages pretendant of Universal Truth --aka clogged egos. Some, too far gone in savage magical chanting, have already bombed clinics and murdered doctors.

Self-righteousness is no antidote to this personal internal monologue of magical thinking, but reinforcement. Will it spread like a psychotic contagion? It has before. It is, even by intent, by imbeciles bashing Muslims in this blog. Do we yet raise children numb enough to charge against each other as “murderers” when taxes get too high and incomes too low?

The antidote to this immanent calamity is a discussion of what “a soul” is, and here, Christian-ish and Scientismist alike are equally at a loss. Scientismists chant that there’s no such thing, and Christian-ish pretend to know, but find they can’t argue sensibly about it, only parrot what they’re told.

The science of this society deems it reasonable to routinely remove arms, legs, toes, brain halves, my tonsils, appendices, you name it, without a qualm that they may be removing “a piece of soul.” Fetuses can’t be polled as to what they feel and think, so those compelled to call abortions “murder” act as magical shamans speaking for them.

There are small societies that don’t see ceremonial execution as a solution to anything. They’ve existed peacefully for time unknown. This one, however, is too prone to mass and individual murder in the name of complete artificialities, often magically transferring words from one book or another and twisting them into some sort of gratifying savagery. What bang-slam movie does this society watch that doesn’t gratify people's imaginations with “killing the bad guy?”

We watched one last night: “The Fast Runner,”(2000) written, acted, directed and produced by Inuit tribespeople. The bad-guy murderers were punished: hit with a stick and the admonition “the killing stops here!” Then, grandma told them to go away and do their hunting and igloo building elsewhere. They were sufficiently punished and we found it gratifying. Maybe we’re not “advanced.” Or maybe you aren’t.

Randy --

Your response is reasonable as far as it goes and logical according to your own premises, but it sidesteps the real issue I was getting at. Anti-abortion rhetoric routinely refers to fetuses as children and abortion as murder. If fertilized embryos are morally equivalent to children, then there can be no question: the refrigerator with the 500 embryos must be saved first. But of course that is ridiculous.

And it is not true that "No one, not even the most pro-life, objects to an exception where the life of the mother is really at stake. No one." But I will grant you that only the most extreme hold that position. Yet if the Mississippi referendum stating that human life begins at conception had gone through, what would have been the legal basis for valuing the mother over the fetus? Laws do not automatically allow for common sense exceptions.

Calling fetuses "'children" (as in saying X number of "children" have died since Roe vs. Wade) and abortion murder is not an attempt to make an argument. It's an attempt to shut down an argument. The point of my hypothetical was to suggest that in practice no sane person believes an embryo is the equivalent of a human being.

Once we put aside such incendiary rhetoric, we can actually get down to the difficult questions. This isn't an easy issue. It shouldn't be an easy issue. But if we dispense with logically untenable positions, maybe people of good will can find common ground.

Our next president, Free Love Newt, says life begins in the testes. He should know.

Oh, why HI, Randy! Yes, yes, I'm fine, thanks!. Wonderful, in fact. As usual. Hope your situation improves soon!

How's the ol' subconscious tendency to contradict yourself going? Like magic? I'll bet!

Speaking of abortion, when was the last time a pro-choicer ran for the GOP Presidential nomination, or a pro-lifer for the Democratic nomination for President? Anyone know?

Now that this conversation has degenerated into a menage of mating misinformation, it's time for a scholarly overview on the basics of bonding.

Earthworm sex
youtube.com/watch?v=2fG-KkR3FZ8

I don't think there is a more important debate than this one because it gets right at the heart of many issues. First is the idea of individual rights and responsibilities versus collective ones. Myself, I'm for the death penalty. But the utilitarian value of opposing it outweighs the benefits of using it. The benefit being that some justice was met out to the killer—or if you want to call it revenge, that's okay, too. The idea of someone getting away with a heinous crime just goes against my grain.

For instance, there's a guy in Florida, the state that I live in, who raped a nine year-old-girl for three days and then buried her alive. He left the area thinking he had gotten away with it. A few days later he was on film by a news crew making a report on homeless shelters. The guy was grinning and having a fine time. (Criminal mastermind that he considered himself to be, he had gotten away with it, and was quite pleased with himself.)

Randy likes to refer to those with leftward leanings as living in a "topsy-turvy upside down bizarre world." He is right about the seeming inversion of values. Take for instance, the position of "Believers" to nonbelievers, like myself. One reason that I as an atheist favor the death penalty is just that—it's the only penalty the offender is ever going to face. The religious, on the other hand, have a book that says, "'Vengeance is mine,' saith the Lord. 'I will repay.'" It's their book, which gives ample reason for incarcerating the offender until he stands before the Judgment Seat of Christ. That seems simple and reasonable enough, but it isn't—and I think it's very revealing about where they are coming from.

The issue about abortion, it seems to me, has much more to do with the need for the religious to control others than it does about anyone's "rights." The simple fact of the matter is that what goes on inside a woman's body is her business—as long as we are going to remain 'free' people. One can oppose the idea of abortion on moral grounds, as atheist Christopher Hitchens did. But when those compelled to control others are given an opportunity to inflict their will upon society, there is simply no end at which they are satisfied. If one looks to what the religious did in Afghanistan, one finds that they need to keep upping the ante.

A perhaps more salient example of this is from Iran—and it's on video tape. The religious had to up the ante from someone not committing adultery to someone being raped. There just weren't enough adulterers to satisfy their urge to control and to meet out "justice." So, when a sixteen year old boy was raped by a man, they executed both the boy and the man for "homosexuality." One couldn't buy songbirds in Afghanistan, etc, etc, etc. There's no satisfying them. Once the issue of "protecting the unborn" is attained, they'll come up with another important cause.

~~~~

When someone makes an argument for the death penalty deterring murders, they are unfortunately thinking regionally. The reason I oppose the death penalty—despite my own personal view of it—is because I know from history that the abolition of it is a civilizing influence upon the human animal. If we think in terms of global benefit, there's no doubt about how we as a world full of people can evolve into a more humane bunch. We know this because our humanity has been gradually improving since The Enlightenment.

"How curious that your description of people characterising abortion is murder is 'incendiary' and 'an attempt to shut down debate.'"

It's not "curious" at all. If one side insists a fertilized egg is equivalent to a living child, it is impossible to continue the discussion. If Person A insists on calling Person B a baby-killer, Person B simply has to walk away.

But it's a ridiculous position to hold. As the hypothetical I offered above suggests, no sane person could value an embryo and a human being who has been born, or is even viable outside the womb, equally. I have trouble imagining anyone would leave a baby to burn to death in a crib in order to save a collection of petri dishes.

"Presumably you have the same contempt for those that accuse pro-life people of favouring back alley abortions"

Well, since you bring it up, I do not accuse pro-life people of wanting that, and those who would make that accusation seem to me to also be guilty of incendiary rhetoric. Clearly you are happier arguing with a straw man.

Of course, the situations aren't quite equivalent. Calling pro-choice supporters "murderers" is an issue of definition. Saying that outlawing abortion would lead to illegal abortions is an argument about consequence. One can argue that "back alley abortions" would be an unintended consequence of anti-abortion laws. But surely that is not what anti-abortion folks want. I presume they are motivated by good intentions, not malice or even indifference.

Thought this would be a good place to wish Rutger Hauer a happy birthday. Any news on "Hobo with an Uzi" - his upcoming sequel with Dame Helen Mirren?

The point was made that the death penalty may actually encourage additional killing in murder cases, to eliminate possible witnesses. This has been seen in a number of murders in my area in recent years.

Roger,

Almost a week, and no new comments?

339 on the main page but still only 328 on the actual article?

I know you are doing what you can, but you should seriously consider hosting your own website. At least then you can actually post the comments you clear for publication. By now you know that part of the charm of your blogs is the long discussion afterward, but it gets annoying when comments just never show up!

Please host your own place, I'm sure the Sun Times would thank you.

Peace Out.

I was allowed as part of a college class in Probation and Parole to tour the New Mexico State Penitentiary. We got to visit Level VI, where they keep the worst of the worst, pre-Death Row, locked down inmates, 23 hours a day in a 12X7 cell, one hour they get to walk in a bare cage outside. Given a choice, I'd gladly take the sodium chloride injection. Better to be dead, than trapped like a rat in a hole for decade after decade.

Unfortunately, war and self-defense prove that taking another's life does have instances where it can be justified.

And in many situations in our past, especially in the military, innocents can be considered less important than the deaths of those who we deem dangerous (Not that it something it likes to do, or anyone specifically chooses to do because they simply wanted too).

I still believe, however, an innocent's life shouldn't be equal to the taking of potentially guilty man. To be honest, though, sitting in jail for the rest of your life for something you didn't do is almost worse than just being put out of your misery because no one can prove your innocence. I don't know, take that how you will, I still would support removing the death penalty any day, even if I see and understand the implications and feelings of those who put the concept into motion and maintained it to this day.

Well, I have to write a summary about this, I agree that if the death penatly is going to be used on say "John Doe" then he should be able to re-trail as many times as possible, bringing up as much new evidence as he can in his fight for life. I also think if you outright kill someone on a video tape in front of a police station and admit to it, then you should be skipped to the front of the line. Why does everyone in America have to be held to such a high standard, Someone brought up the war, they killed Saddam Hussein without even thinking and no one thought a damn thing of it, but if we (Texas) kill someone that has shoot a child or a mother, it it completely wrong. Yes, i agree that people that dont deserve to die get killed, but mostly were taking people out of this world that might kill someone in Jail that doesnt need to die but just serve time, or might hurt a guard or worse yet get out and kill someone in your family. How would you feel then? Would you still want to hold people in jail for 200 year sentence and pay taxes so they can eat 3 solid meals a day and free medicane while our soliders and elderly dont always get that? I didnt think so, but again, this is just my opinion.

Thanks for the great news. If only two inmates out of 437 were wrongfully accused that means that the court system got it 99.5% correct. This news is certainly inspiring. I can't think of any other system, government-run or otherwise, that can boast such a high success rate.

Hello Kevin,

Actually, that it 99,995% efficiency. But that OK, I don’t really expect mathematical literacy from everyone.

At the level of the US population, 0,005% of 300 000 000 is 1,5 million people.
So I guess you expect the Us population bureau to be off by 1,5 million, the number of medical errors to lead to at least 1,5 million dead, the number of death per other means due to the various levels of government to be 1,5 million people every few years.

So for you 1,5 million people is nothing. Oh, sorry, 0,05%, which is actually 15 million people, is nothing.
Kevin, if you ever read this, be careful with math, reducing people to a percentage is a never good.

Regards,

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn Park.

Thank you Mr.Ebert for bringing this movie to my attention,Nobody has the right to take another life, I've been a fan since 1981. God bless you and your wife.

Hi Roger,

Here's a column on the death penalty that I saw today from Dennis Prager.

It's a thought experiment: what would you choose for the person who murders you?

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/02/21/if_youre_ever_murdered_heres_an_idea

Clarifying, I think.

Roger,

It's so easy for you to write this essay perched on your high horse, and throwing out random facts here and there, and accusing Christian folks of non-Christian acts. That's such an easy and predictable approach, that I thought a man of your intelligence was above. Sure, there are issues with the death penalty, but that doesn't mean inherently that the death penalty is wrong. If you want to bring up "Christian" in this debate, then check your Bible my friend. The death penalty takes place in there, and if that's not a good enough reference for you, then don't use the hypocritical argument to support your case. It's just flat out uneducated, and speaks to someone that is writing purely from emotion. Not from true research or with journalistic integrity. You have a large platform on which you were blessed to speak, I just wish you weren't so cavalier in throwing around your opinions. Your readers might be impressed, but I see through the clever and inventive writing. All that I see is someone taking a naive approach to an issue they have no direct experience with. That's your right, but be careful how you disguise your anger at the Lord.

Hello Randy,

Regarding low birth rates; ‘We’re doomed if we keep this up’. But who is the ‘We’ that you refer to? A rethorical queston of course, ‘We’ know who ‘We’ are!
Ok. Let’s try a thought experiment: What would happen if the prolife movement won its case, abortion was banned and furthermore, oral contraception was not easily available? Would population growth rate go up? Would the West be saved?
My answer: Tubal ligation and vasectomy. Women would have their first child earlier (on average), and most families would agree, somewhere around two children, that that was all the family they could afford, and that any other child would lower the standard of living for the ones born. Many women would also be fed up with the supplementary menstrual cramps due to a less well regulated cycle and men and women with all the fuss the thermometer methods and condoms (if available) require. So tubal ligation rates would go up, as well as vasectomies. Overall medical costs would increase. The population growth rate would remain the same. Actually, since many young mothers might not be able to complete their education and many young fathers would have to start working earlier to pay for their families, I expect the overall birth rates might eventually be even lower.

Don’t believe me? Ask a few mothers of large families how often they heard people tell them their husband was a pig to overload them with so many kids. Or an aunt, telling another aunt about a cousin in financial difficulty: ‘What do you expect, with such a brood….’ Social pressure is a strong, strong force, much stronger than laws, really.

What ‘We’ really need is a way to ensure that ‘our’ culture survives, and to do so it must join with the one of ‘others’ and make a new whole that we can call ‘ours’.

Best regards, have fun with your elections! Elect open minded people!

Michel Lamontagne
Otterburn park, Qc

Roger,

Another great post. While I won't claim to be on the side of the executioner, I think it's fair to mention that if our choices are 1) kill the prisoner in a [mostly/somewhat/hardly, depending upon your particular view] way, or 2) commute the sentence and place that person in jail for the rest of their life (i.e. until death), I find that we've come to a somewhat illogical set of decisions. Killing the prisoner is swift and not always just, but I would argue that placing that same prisoner (whose sentence may or may not be just) into jail until they die is falsely comforting since, in the second case, we're relying on the state to kill that person by confinement.
That is to say that we may be happy to note that a prisoner will be allowed to live out their life in jail, but with no future ahead except that of being a ward of the state until their death. The justice or lack thereof really can be separated from our concerns about the state committing murder since in both cases that person might be innocent and therefore unjustly confined/killed. So we're left with deciding whether to kill the prisoner quickly, or to let that person linger on in a place well-documented for its horrors until that prisoner dies. In both cases, we're letting the state "murder" someone, although in the former case it's done much more quickly and at a far lesser cost to society than in the latter.

Nobody has a right to take another life means that "Samantha Power" and "Barack Obama" are both named "Nobody".

"Nobody" is involved in genocidal revolutions across the world in the name of “humanitarian intervention” (as in the massacre of Black Libyans)

Under the auspices of the UN (central banks), British and US forces are going into Africa to destroy every independent state and drive out the Chinese who support the governments.

Invisible Children invasion against KONY is being used to create war hysteria with American people. Obama has an Odinga Islamic alliance to crush the Christians in Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Congo, Tanzania, etc.

Getting to their natural resources means Africa is a battlefield in flames between the US and China with “Nobody” leading the charge.

Before writing this, I printed out Dennis Prager's column, to make sure that I'd be quoting it accurately if the need arose.
The thing is, though, unless you're familiar with Prager's speaking voice, mere print doesn't convey his smugness, arrogance, and extreme self-satisfaction.
He always tries to come across as a philosopher - and if you happen to agree with his stances, you just buy into that automatically.
As to the column and its "question":
In my own comment I said that hypothetical questions are always loaded, which is what I don't like about them.
My own loaded hypothetical was included to make the point that such questions cannot be answered in a tossed-off, yes-or-no fashion - which is Prager's point as well (if I'm reading him right).

Remember the 1988 Presidential debate between George HW Bush and Michael Dukakis?
Remember the hole Dukakis fell into when he answered Bernard Shaw's question about an attack on his wife in a sort of detached, clinical way?
Nobody seems to remembers that Shaw followed up by asking Bush the same question.
I remember that, and I also remember Bush's answer:
"Bernie?!?!?", accompanied by an exasperation take worthy of Charles Lane.
I always respected Bush a lot more after that.
*didn't vote for him though ...*

I'm out of time now, so I'll finish this off tomorrow.

Hey, how's this for a Captcha:
wackeu

Okay, where was I?

AS Dennis Prager sets up his premise (It isn't realy a question as written, more along the lines of Swift's Modest Proposal), his argument is that the victim of a murder and the surviving members of that victims are entitled to some specific retribution for the act - as in the death of the perpetrator.
Prager cites several of the most violent murder scenarios, asks that people imagine themselves to be victims of such acts ("Bernie!/!?!?": see above), and proposes that they ought make advance provision against such occurence by approving the death penalty in advance, should the murderer be caught.
Never let it be said that I "evaded" or "ducked" this question, so here goes:
If I were to be murdered, would I want whoever did it to be killed in response?
Sure I would - but I'd be bearing in mind that my response would be grounded in revenge in its most basic form.
Deep down, I'd guess that many if not most people might feel the same way.
I wonder if this is the response that Prager was really aiming for: the desire to strike back when you've been wronged, to get payback (as opposed to "closure", a word that makes no sense to me in this context at all).
In that same vein,it might be well to remember that most if not all opposition to the death penalty these days comes from religious leaders and communities.

Looking at Randy's response to the Roeder-Tiller case, I find myself marveling at his word choices:
"I do not support the murder of Dr. Tiller, himself a murderer ... "
" ...(Roeder) should be eligible for all punishments including the death penalty..."
Then he goes off the rails by making accusations against then-Gov. Sibelius (forgetting to cite the agenda-driven sites whence he got his info) and dragging Obamacare into the fray (irrelevant to the issue at hand).
Actually, Mr. Roeder has already had his trial. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life with no possibility of parole for 50 years.
Kansas has the death penalty, but the judge or the jury (not sure who does that in Kan.) decided against it.
I wonder how Randy would act if, as a juror, he had been on this trial, and would have had to decide in a penalty phase whether Scott Roeder would recieve a death sentence.
Now that's a question all of us ought to think about.
Even Randy Masters.
Or for that matter, Dennis Prager.

My comment from last night isn't up yet, so what follows is asort of summing-up of my admittedly all-over-the-place feelings on this topic.
You may regard this as your SPOILER WARNING; works of fiction that you might want to look into are mentioned, and their endings revealed.

- A while back, MEtv reran a two-part episode of Rawhide, "Incident At Deadhorse."
Briefly: Broderick Crawford, the boss of the title town, has gunned down a crokked gambler. Sheriff Chill Wills has to arrest him, the townspeople put him on trial an d convict him, and the circuit judge sentences him to hang.
This last throws the townspeople, who expect Crawford to just get a wrist slap. The judge is adamant, and sends for a circuit-riding executioner to do the job.
Crawford's two sons, who aren't going to let Daddy hang, intercept the hangman, Burgess Meredith, and bury him alive in the wild.
But Clint Eastwood and the cattle drovers find and rescue Meredith, who insists on being taken to Deadhorse to perform the execution.
We learn that Meredith was once the recipient of a botched lynching, which left him with a permenently broken neck. Though he was once adoctor, he has since become a full-time hangman, and has made a study of the technique, so that the men he hangs do not suffer as he did.
When the drovers get Meredith to Deadhorse (after a couple more attempts by Crawford's sons to stop them), he sets about rebuilding the town's gallows to his own specs. Then he asks Crawford for his age, height and weight; this is so he can fashion the noose knot, calculate the body drop, and allow time for the heart to stop beating after the drop.
Right up the end, none of the townspeople believe that Crawford will actually hang. But Crawford stops his sons from doing any more harm to Meredith and agrees to be hanged, forestalling more possible violence.
The episode ends with the hanging, in the discreet style of early '60s TV; nothing is shown directly, and the whole town is humbled by the experience, the two sons in particular. Hangman Meredith gets on his wagon and leaves town, his job done; the drovers return to the herd; "... and now, scenes from next week's Rawhide ..."
If you ever get another chance, you ought to see this show.

- Way up in the first comment I made on this thread, I mentioned a short story, "The Question", by Stanley Ellin.
I believe this story is long out of print, and thus would be hard to find by even the most diligent of you all.
Even so, I'll take this space and excerpt the story's ending, simply as a way of closing off my contribution to this topic.
I know I'm doing a disservice to the story as a whole (and if you ever get a chance you should read the whole story), so again, SPOILER WARNING:

(The narrator is his state's "electrocutioner", a term he prefers to "executioner". His main business is running a electrical supply shop, and he keeps his other job a secret from friends and family.
When his son reaches adulthood, the narrator tells him about the other job, in hope that the son will take it up when his father retires or passes on.
But the son, who is what would nowadays be called a 'slacker', isn't buying in. It's not that he's an opponent of capital punishment; he just doesn't want to be the one that does it.
This leads to an argument btween father and son culminating thus;)

(The son) "Is that all it is to you?" he said."A duty?"
"Yes."
"But you get paid for it, don't you?"
"I get paid little enough for it."
He kept looking at me that way. "Only a duty?" he said, and never took his eyes off me. "But you enjoy it, don't you?"
That was the question he asked.
You enjoy it, don't you? You stand there looking through a peephole in the wall at the chair. In thirty years I have stood there more than a hundred times looking at that chair. The guards bring somebody in. Usually he is in a daze.; sometimes he screams, throws himself around and fights. Sometimes it is a woman, and a woman can be as hard to handle as a man when she is led to the chair. Sooner or later, whoever it is is strapped down and the black hood is dropped over his head. Now your hand is on the switch.
The warden signals, and you pull the switch. The current hits the body like a temendous rush of air suddenly filling it.The body leaps out of the chair with only the straps holding it back. You release the switch and the body falls back again.
You do it once more, do it a third time to make sure. And whenever your hand presses the switch you can see in your mind what the current is doing to the body and what the face under the hood must look like.
Enjoy it?
That was the question my son asked me. That was what he said to me, as if I didn't have the same feelings deep down in me that we all have.
Enjoy it?
But, my God, how could anyone not enjoy it!

- from "The Question", copyright 1962, by Stanley Ellin.

In Greek mythology, Heracles committed shocking murders. Instead of instituting the death penalty, divine justice decreed that he expiate his crimes with years of grueling, sometimes humiliating labor, with his wages paid to the family that suffered the loss. Even the Olympian gods, notably Apollo, sometimes underwent the same penance for their deadly crimes.

Therefore, again I aver, hard labor, basic subsistence (no frills) and permanent incarceration are the best alternatives to the death penalty, which is both soul-poisoning and wasteful.

P.S.: Sometimes Heracles was subject to hallucinations (usually sent by an implacably vengeful Hera) when he committed his killings; therefore, he may have had recourse to an insanity defense.